NBA Rejects EA Deal

PuppiesOnAcid writes "Although the NFL buckled under EA's mighty stronghold in the video game football market (Madden), the NBA has chosen to reject EA's exclusive rights deal. Jon Robinson explains, 'One of the reasons is that the NBA Live series simply doesn't have a stranglehold on the market the way Madden has for years, so by signing an exclusive deal with EA, the NBA would actually be losing money.'"

Comments

Too wild

[Steve Embalmer]

The NBA probably just couldn't handle the violent level of EA's tough corporate culture.

Re:Too wild

[tbone1]

David Stern was mad at EA he added five games to Jermaine O'Neal's suspension.

Sincerely,
Bill Scheft

Re:Too wild

[one4nine4two]

You expect the Slashdot crowd to get your baseball jokes?

They should make a law against this.

[koreaman]

I'm glad that the NBA rejected the fofer, but I think that they should make a law against such agreements, as they lead to monopolies very easily.

Re:They should make a law against this.

[Lord Kano]

Apparently, you don't know what a monopoly is.

Anyone else is free to make a football game(and others do), it's just that EA has paid the NFL for the exclusive right to use team and player names in their games.

Even IF the NBA signed a similar deal with EA, other people would be free to develop other basketball games.

LK

Re:They should make a law against this.

[koreaman]

Yeah, I know that. But a basketball game without the NBA teams and players will not sell well.

Re:They should make a law against this.

[Anonymous Coward]

And a cola that's not Coke or Pepsi won't sell well, either, but that doesn't make either a monopoly.

Re:They should make a law against this.

[Lord Kano]

I guess all of those NCAA basketball titles are just there to cover blank spaces in the stores.

LK

Re:They should make a law against this.

[Otter]

On the other hand, the pro sports leagues themselves are monopolies. MLB has an antitrust exemption; the others have a partial exemption relating to broadcast rights. (Recall USFL v. NFL...) I imagine an enterprising lawyer, or Al Davis, if he's looking for a new feud, could make a reasonable case against the NFL deal.

Re:They should make a law against this.

[Londovir]

Gee, I so love it when people think they are holier than thou! It makes it so much more delightful to point out their "inaccuracies".

According to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, a monopoly is defined as:

1. Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service
2. A company or group having exclusive control over a commercial activity
3. Something that is exclusively possessed or controlled

Hrm, let's see: EA controls for the next half-decade the exclusive rights to the NFL teams, players, logo, etc. They were trying to get the exclusive rights to the NBA teams, players, logo, etc. By WHAT stretch of any imagination does this sort of arrangement NOT meet definitions 1 and 3 above, if not 2 as well? If you define the commercial activity or commodity as "officially licensed football or basketball games with real life, actual players and teams", then you just defined a monopoly, whether you like it or not.

And although you contend that other people are free to make football games, lest we remind the world that other people have been free for over 20 years to make other operating systems, yet how many have truly succeeded and excelled against Microsoft? Not many, if any, could truly be said to succeed (in the sense of achieving more than 50% market share). There are few who would deny that Microsoft isn't a monopoly -- and this is the same situation. Sure, you can make another generic football game, but I guarantee you there is enough of a sizable population that enjoys sports games for having their favorite team/player in them that EA's deal will push out the competition slowly but surely. Those of us who appreciate a quality game don't care - but we're not enough of the buying population to make a dent, otherwise the annual Madden shovelware wouldn't succeed as well as it has against the quality offering by Sega.

Maybe part of the problem in the business world these days are enough people don't recognize a monopoly as it's forming, but only well late after the fact. This is the beginning of a true monopoly (especially considering the aggressive takeover tactics EA is using, and their labor practices, etc) - and apparently too many people aren't seeing this already.

Re:They should make a law against this.

[Jucius Maximus]

" Yeah, I know that. But a basketball game without the NBA teams and players will not sell well."

Then we should be complaining about basketball monopolies, not software monopolies.

Re:They should make a law against this.

[koreaman]

Yep, pretty much.
Those might have some small fan bsase, but they will never compete with the big EA games.

Re:They should make a law against this.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, they would be like Jerry Jones, and sign an outside deal with Sega to make "America's Football", featuring the Dallas Cowboys vs. the CFL.

Re:They should make a law against this.

[waynelorentz]

According to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, a monopoly is defined as:

It doesn't matter what the dictionary says. It matters what the law and the courts say. Running to a dictionary to prove a point only proves that you don't understand the law.

Re:They should make a law against this.

[Skim123]

Good God, man, have you forgotten about Double Dribble? It did not have league teams/players, and it, many would argue, was the pinnacle of basketball console games.

Re:They should make a law against this.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, just to reiterate the purpose of the contract: EA is the only company with permission to use NFL logos and NFL player names within their products.

This agreement does not meet definition #1 because, EA is not producing or selling the commodity in question (logos and names). The NFL has a monopoly on those (although it would be extremely hard to argue they control the player names). EA has simply acquired the exclusive right (among software companies) to use them.

The agreement does not meet definition 2 because, again, EA does not have exclusive control over the logos or names. In my opinion, it would be a huge stretch to argue "commercial activity" encompasses "NFL logo and player name enabled software". If you allow that type of niche interpretation, then hundreds of companies become eligible for anti-trust legislation. Everything from big corporate entities to mom-and-pop stores.

The agreement does not meet definition 3 beacuse EA does not exclusively control or possess the logos or names. The NFL can sign a contract with any other company (think clothing manufacturer) to allow use of the logos and names on their products.

Re:They should make a law against this.

[Skim123]

Erm, I think those NCAA games sell all right. EA, in fact, has such a game for sale - March Madness 2005. In fact, a number of game makers make both the NCAA and NBA version (since it's just the decoration of the players/teams/stadiums that differs, along with some minor rules settings), and even have intragame integration (like drafting a player you created in their NCAA game into the NBA game).

Re:They should make a law against this.

[TykeClone]

Dude - those NCAA games sell very well and do it without player names. They have licensed the college names, stadiums, logos, and uniforms, but the players are not named. Of course, anyone can figure out who WR#1 for Iowa State is by doing a quick search on the internet - and you can even edit the name to make it correct.

The names are not the big deal for sports games - it's getting the teams (which wouldn't be too tough to spoof with only 30 teams in the NFL - you could make a team called the "Minneapolis Norsemen" instead of the "Minnesota Vikings" and most people would get the picture) and prefilling the rosters with players whose statistics resemble reality - which you can still do with generic names.

Re:They should make a law against this.

[Skim123]

Ah, but the original commenter has a good point. If you let the NBA sell out an exclusive contract, then the NCAA might very well do the same thing. And then who's going to buy a basketball game (pro or college) without the real players?

Now, should there be a law prohibiting this? No, I don't think so. But I do think people should let the League and EA know their feelings, both by email/letter and by not buying games with exclusive licensing deals.

Re:They should make a law against this.

[upsidedown_duck]

What about Dr. J and Larry Bird?

Re:They should make a law against this.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is no way a monopoly, because the NFL has every right to withhold the use of THEIR copyrighted content.

So when you use these names you MUST still pay the NFL. So if the NFL doesn't want you to use their content, then YOU can't.

Re:They should make a law against this.

[pdxaaron]

Hrm, let's see: EA controls for the next half-decade the exclusive rights to the NFL teams, players, logo, etc. They were trying to get the exclusive rights to the NBA teams, players, logo, etc. By WHAT stretch of any imagination does this sort of arrangement NOT meet definitions 1 and 3 above, if not 2 as well? If you define the commercial activity or commodity as "officially licensed football or basketball games with real life, actual players and teams", then you just defined a monopoly, whether you like it or not.

It is not a monopoly just as Ticketmaster is not a monopoly, and ABC isn't a monopoly. Courts have rules again and again that companies can engage in exclusive contracts without being a monopoly.

Also, there were no "Agressive takeover tactics" used by EA regarding their NFL contract. The NFL asked the different software companies to bid for exclusive rights, and EA's bid was the one they accepted. ESPN lost that bidding war the same way they won the NBA TV contract bidding war a couple of years ago.

In fact, if anyone was pressuring the NBA, I'd bet it was ABC / ESPN using the leverage of their massive television contract to stop the NBA from signing an exclusive deal.

Re:They should make a law against this.

[reverseengineer]

Heck, even EA has some history with this idea- I remember owning NBA Live 96, and as had customarily been the case with NBA basketball video games, Michael Jordan was conspicuously absent due to contractual issues. However, if you used the player creation system and entered in the name "Michael Jordan," the system would offer as default a baldheaded 6'6" shooting guard from North Carolina who happened to have amazingly good stats.

On the flip side, however, I believe one of the failings of the notoriously unpopular "Madden 64" on N64 was its lack of an NFL license when virtually every other NFL game that year had one. Truly an epic matchup between the team in yellow helmets and the team in orange helmets. Games based on NCAA sports work out fine because no one can make a game with player names; if EA starts snatching up exclusive official league licenses, they can produce games that seem more "legitimate" than those of competitors, just by virtue of offering league content that their competitors lacked access to.

Re:They should make a law against this.

[theVP]

It doesn't matter what the dictionary says. It matters what the law and the courts say. Running to a dictionary to prove a point only proves that you don't understand the law.

ok then, let's look at a law dictionary (via Law.com dictionary)

Monopoly: n. a business or inter-related group of businesses which controls so much of the production or sale of a product or kind of product as to control the market, including prices and distribution. Business practices, combinations and/or acquisitions which tend to create a monopoly may violate various federal statutes which regulate or prohibit business trusts and monopolies or prohibit restraint of trade. However, limited monopolies granted by a manufacturer to a wholesaler in a particular area are usually legal, since they are like "licenses." Public utilities such as electric, gas and water companies may also hold a monopoly in a particular geographic area since it is the only practical way to provide the public service, and they are regulated by state public utility commissions.

http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?typed=monop oly&type=1&submit1.x=54&submit1.y=8&submit1=Look+u p

Whether or not they are a legal monopoly would be a good argument to have, but frankly, I'd let a court decide that, if it is even worth the cost.

Re:They should make a law against this.

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently you don't know what a monopoly is either. A monopoly is one that has market power, and now EA HAS market power over football video games.

By your logic EA wouldn't want to sign exclusive rights, because it would be cheaper just to make a basketball game. The reason they want to sign is because of the market power they receive with exclusive rights.

Re:They should make a law against this.

[Anonymous Coward]

In economic principals it has to deal alot more with market power then the definitions set above.

Re:They should make a law against this.

[Dirtside]

A legal monopoly is when you control the overwhelming majority of a market, not just when you control the majority (or all) of the distribution of a particular product. By your logic, Apple is a monopoly because they're the only ones who sell iPods. While technically, yes, they have a monopoly on the manufacture and sale of iPods, they aren't a legal monopoly in the Sherman Act sense.

Similarly, neither the EA nor the NFL have monopoly control over any markets. ("Football games with NFL content" is not a market.) Microsoft selling 90% of the desktop PC OSes out there? Yeah, that's a monopoly on a particular market (and one they abused in order to gain power in other markets, which the Sherman Act makes illegal).

Basically, you're ignorant. Go learn about what a legal monopoly is.

Re:They should make a law against this.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're an idiot. You *must* be in high school to have such a narrow view of the how the world works. Do you think lawyers and judges consult a dictionary when it comes to making complex decisions? That dictionary definition is *ridiculously* vague, and makes *every* company a monopoly. If you don't know what a reductio ad absurdem is, you should learn, because it's normally what I'd do next to you. However, as it's close to the holidays, I'm feeling rather nice today. So now that I took you to school, what are you going to do?

Re:They should make a law against this.

[Londovir]

Ah, wonderful jump/leap of logic you make there. What exactly is it about me that you apparently know that states I have no understanding of the law? Obviously you must know something about my education that I (nor my college diploma) apparently know. How delightful.

A "legal" definition of monopoly is when a company has achieved the power to fix prices and/or exclude all competition, along with having corporate policies in place that maintain, preserve, and extend or use that power once achieved. Now that EA has the exclusive NFL rights, it can fix prices wherever it wants (since you have no other recourse of product to purchase if you want an officially licensed game). By virtue of the exclusive license they have excluded their competition from having the same license. The only part unknown at this stage is whether they have policies in place to grow and maintain their power. You could argue their attempt to gain a matching exclusivity with the NBA (and who knows about the NHL - they're ripe for the money right now with the lockout) is proof that they are trying to leverage their power with the NFL against the NBA and kill off more competition.

In any case, look at legal precedent as well. The Microsoft case present some interesting parallels, as I alluded to earlier. If EA is not considered to be a monopoly in legal terms (which is ironic, as it generally is the government which decides such matters, as it's usually the government which brings anti-competitive/monopolistic practices to the court system for judicial review), it could arguably be accused of anti-competitive tactics.

This is the core of what builds a monopoly. As I said before, had you read my post closely, you would see that I purported that EA is beginning to become a monopoly - and locking out all competition to a product via exclusivity rights is how it all begins. Haven't we seen Microsoft tweak things in the past so that other people's products wouldn't "work" with their software? Does that stop people from writing their software? No, it certainly does not. But - and this is the key point - when your product already enjoys a market share, doing this helps to guarantee your share tends to 100%. Well, Madden already enjoys a high market share, and by getting the NFL agreement, they help to prevent other competing products from gaining ground, as it will always be the case that people will not buy a game without actual teams and players.

Re:They should make a law against this.

[TykeClone]

if EA starts snatching up exclusive official league licenses, they can produce games that seem more "legitimate" than those of competitors, just by virtue of offering league content that their competitors lacked access to

I'd agree with that, but I'd also say that just because you can start Michael Vick instead of "Atlanta QB" doesn't make up for gameplay.

As a side note, one gripe I have with the EA college games is that there is way too much showboating in it - the college games should show more sportsmanship. The showboating is fine for the pro games, but it doesn't belong in the college games.

Re:They should make a law against this.

[-kertrats-]

It's been said before, but I wouldn't recommend a dictionary as a legal source. Try the monopoly laws rather than the definition of monopoly next time.

Re:They should make a law against this.

[nwbvt]

A monopoly in professional sports? Who ever heard of such a thing?

Re:They should make a law against this.

[Londovir]

I love how people on /. cannot think of ways to say things without resorting to the schoolyard practice of calling people names. If the best argument you can come up with is "you're ignorant", I pray to all above that you are not a lawyer, as I can see how your legal arguments (d)evolve: "In closing your honor, the plaintiff/defendant is ignorant."

In all true seriousness, I wasn't necessarily discussing the Sherman Act. The Sherman Act has been amended numerous times with various acts through the 100 years or more of its existence for the simple reason that it was terribly vague in its terminology. It barely defined the words "monopoly", "restraint of trade", and so forth. By that alone, the Sherman Act is hardly applicable to modern times.

Still, if you discuss the Sherman Act, there is an argument to be made (probably weak, I admit, but one which might be made) that Article I of the Sherman Act may apply. You could argue that the economic repurcussions caused by the exclusive contract with the NFL will impinge on the trade and commerce of the competitors in relation to nationwide commerce. You might argue that the reduced sales of the competitors (due to the lost NFL rights) will cause a trickle effect on lost sales tax revenues (for the states) as well as other monitary repurcussions.

In any case, there's another weak argument to be made that the Lorain Journal v. United States (1951) could also be a precedent for this NFL deal. If you parallel the NFL to the Lorain Journal, there's a slim matching circumstance: The NFL is arguably about 95-99% of the professional football market in the United States (by your logic), just as the Journal was in the 1950s. They are, essentially, refusing to sell their product to consumers (ie, Midway, Sega, etc) and preferring EA. This goes back to Sherman Act again.

I'm not saying these are valid (or winnable) legal prongs of attack, but I am trying to point them out so that, lest you delude yourself into thinking I am a fanboy who trolls on Slashdot. I'm hardly ignorant to the law as you seem to think.

Re:They should make a law against this.

[OneHungLo]

And then who's going to buy a basketball game (pro or college) without the real players?

The last time I checked it, college sports games weren't allowed to have actual player names, because it was considered an endorsement by the players, and was therefore illegal. This rule may have changed, but I haven't seen a college sports game since the days of the SNES, so I'm not sure. AFAIK, they're more than welcome to use teams, they just can't use the players.

Re:They should make a law against this.

[Igmuth]

So, wait.... Are you saying that the NFL should be forced to liscense thier copy righted material (logos and what have you) to people, even if they don't want to? Since that is the only way to make exclusive contracts such as this illegal.... What if instead of saying noone else can liscense it they simply say that it will cost $10billion dollars? Would that be better? (even though the outcome is the same...)

Re:They should make a law against this.

[Lord Kano]

I went to HS with a guy who went on to play for the University of Pittsburgh, he was so amped up to see his own name in an NCAA PSX game. It was cool for him to play in an NCAA game as himself.

LK

Re:They should make a law against this.

[Dirtside]

I love how people on /. cannot think of ways to say things without resorting to the schoolyard practice of calling people names.

I never called you any names. I said you were ignorant. This seemed true based on your post. You've demonstrated in the parent of this post that you aren't, but it was a reasonable assumption at the time, since you appeared to be conflating "illegal monopoly in the Sherman Act sense" with "dictionary usage of the word 'monopoly'".

By that alone, the Sherman Act is hardly applicable to modern times.

Microsoft was found guilty of being a monopoly under the Sherman Act. That qualifies as "hardly applicable to modern times"?

Re:They should make a law against this.

[Dirtside]

Microsoft was found guilty of being a monopoly under the Sherman Act.

Actually, I misspoke here. To quote from Judge Jackson's decision:

the court concludes that Microsoft maintained its monopoly power by anti-competitive means and attempted to monopolize the Web browser market, both in violation of Section 2 [of the Sherman Act]. Microsoft also violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by unlawfully tying its Web browser to its operating system.

...but in any case, it was found guilty under the Sherman Act.

Re:They should make a law against this.

[angle_slam]

Now that EA has the exclusive NFL rights, it can fix prices wherever it wants (since you have no other recourse of product to purchase if you want an officially licensed game).

First off, prices in the game market are already fixed. Ever see a game selling for more than $49.99? Incredible that, no matter how sophisticated the game is, it is still $49.99?

Because of that EA couldn't just decide to charge whatever it wants for Madden. If it charged $100 or even $59.99, people would just buy other games instead, even if non-football.

Re:They should make a law against this.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody else can produce a VIDEO GAME using any real NFL team names, logos, or characters. End of story. EA has the monopoly on the use of these in the video game market.

Yes, Virginia, it's a monopoly.

Re:They should make a law against this.

[Anonymous Coward]

Christ.. Nobody gives a fuck if this meets the legal definition of monopoly (since the courts are so fucked up these days, and any act can have any meaning depending on who's got the gold). The point is that the consumer is getting screwed because only ONE company can make all the real video football games now. And we all know that EA sports games are pumped out sweatshop games that rarely introduce anything new or innovative into the control or gameplay. Each year they just update the graphics, fuck up the AI, and update the player rosters.

You're kidding yourself if you think a football game without real NFL teams and names is going to sell well. People want to control the names they know when making that 40 yard pass.

THAT is what matters. Not whether some bought and paid for court of law is going to determine whether it meets some pissant legal definition.

Re:They should make a law against this.

[Anonymous Coward]

*sigh*, another individual who has decided to waste his life with the pursuit of "law".

Feel like a big man, sonny? I'll bet you have a pretentious little "esq" at the end of your signature too.

News flash: everyone hates lawyers. They're scum sucking, bottom feeding parasites that only exist because of a fucked up system that they perpetuate.

Q. What's the difference between a dead rabbit on the road and a dead lawyer?

A. There's skid marks before the rabbit.

That sounds like a joke, but I'm sure most people would love to run you down in the road.

Re:They should make a law against this.

[bigman2003]

Why doesn't showboating belong in the college games? Why is showboating banned in the real NFL?

People say that it takes away from the 'purity' of the sport. Ah hell, that's a load of crap. You can't showboat, if you aren't winning/performing well. You can't win/perform well, if you aren't good at the sport.

Somehow, our atheletes are held up to a higher standard than our business professionals, lawyers, and most other professions. Just because they are on TV doesn't mean they should be a role model.

Personally, I really like the TD celebrations...they should highlight them more. And if you don't score a TD, you can't celebrate. So get better, and you too can be on camera acting like a fool...

Re:They should make a law against this.

[bigman2003]

Yes...I've seen a lot of games sell for more than $49.99.

Three come to mind right away...

Doom III
Half Life 2
Diablo 2

Re:They should make a law against this.

[TykeClone]

Why doesn't showboating belong in the college games?

It's another debate, but college (and high school) sports are ametuer and as such, the participants should show some modicum of sportsmanship. I know that the meaning of the word is being lost amongst the "sports parents win-at-all-costs" crowd, but it still is an important part of sports.

As far as TD celebrations go - act like you've been there before and will be there again.

Re:They should make a law against this.

[bigman2003]

But to me, showboating is just FUN.

Once-upon-a-time, sports were fun. Kids went out and played, and had a good time.

Then other people got involved and told them what they should do, and what they shouldn't do.

Once the fun was gone, they had to find another reason to play. Then it became about winning, and money.

If you put 10 guys together for a basketball game, and just let them play- they'll have a great time. 10 minutes after the game, no matter how hotly contested, nobody remembers who 'won', because it was all about fun.

It's like motorcycles...they used to be about FREEDOM, and FUN. Now they are just about safety. You can't really argue with the 'safety people' because who can be against safety? (and they get very self-righteous about it)? But those people don't have fun. Those are the same people who preach 'sportsmanship'.

People who play games where "it doesn't matter if you win or lose" usually don't have a great butt-load of fun- because that is a concept manufactured by some chickenshits who just couldn't play the game themselves.

Winning is a large part of the game...but when you take away everything else, it becomes the ONLY part of the game.

I belong to the "stay out of my life, and I'll stay out of yours" school of thought. And if someone wants to showboat...freakin' let them.

Re:They should make a law against this.

[superpulpsicle]

The goal is NOT to make better games. The goal is to stall as many years as possible with the same game engine.

The EA sport divisions are burning out with some serious unpaid overtime. The company can't afford to pay these employees... just read the latest issue of GameInformer magazine. So they have to use last years football game engine for 2005-2010. Update the roster, ship with a new athlete cover and call it a new game.

Re:They should make a law against this.

[angle_slam]

I was talking about console games. They are all capped at the same price.

Re:They should make a law against this.

[brudjazz]

You're truly STUPID, aren't you? I didn't think you had it in you, then you go and pretend that you know what a monopoly is. So, here, my royal peoness, is why EA is becoming a monopoly. Other game publishing corporations out there won't be able to develop an NFL game with the actual player names, logos, among other things. What about this don't you understand?

Re:They should make a law against this.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've seen games launch at 79.99 CDN. Sega Sport Tennis for PS2 was one such game. There's definitely no cap on game prices, but there is a price that maximizes a companies profits, which most companies feel is around the 49.99 - 59.99 CDN mark, although recently sega has droped that to 29.99.

Re:They should make a law against this.

[Anonymous Coward]

I LOVED the cheesy voice in that game, killer sound for the time

DOUBLE... DRIBBLE

EA probably allowed players to go into the stands.

[Anonymous Coward]

So they can beat up the fans.

NBA said "No, that's way too realistic."

EA games are not the best for BBall.

[CmdrObvious]

While Madden is the disputed leader of all NFL games, with this being the only year in a while where there actually was compition (ESPN Football), the truth of the matter is EA's NBA games are not that good. Plus, the NBA has a much greater numer of games that are NBA lisenced, such as NBA JAM, Ballers, Street(I know its EA, but still). I totally agree it doesnt make sense for the NBA to sign an exclusive deal with EA.

Re:EA games are not the best for BBall.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Me fail English? That's unpossible."
- Ralph Wiggum

Re:EA games are not the best for BBall.

[Reignking]

Simply put, it is difficult to translate the game basketball to a video game. It just doesn't work as well.

Re:EA games are not the best for BBall.

[Headcase88]

At least they way it has been done for the last 20 years. Get the right company to innovate the very way videogame Basketball is played, and they might do it right. I don't know how, I'm not the innovator here, but I'll bet some Video Game designers will think of something brilliant some day.

No worries about this with NHL

[AtariAmarok]

No worries about this happening with the NHL. Pro hockey does not exist OUTSIDE of videogames at this point!

Re:No worries about this with NHL

[ShelbyCobra]

Which brings up an interesting point, will NHL 2004 exist as if there had been a real hockey season, or will it showcase all of the NHL's big stars playing for european teams to pay the bills and stay in mental and physical shape?

Re:No worries about this with NHL

[TopShelf]

They should include bonus rinks and jerseys to reflect the exhibition games these guys are playing. Heck, you could even include Gary Bettman and Bob Goodenow as players so you can have them duke it out at center ice. It would be more entertaining than watching this total lack of negotiation that seems to be going on...

Re:No worries about this with NHL

[SetupWeasel]

It will probably just be players crying about how unfair a 6.5 million dollar per year salary is.

Re:No worries about this with NHL

[jaredbpd]

Maybe it'll just be a fixed camera outside a rink, with the option to zoom in and look at the padlock on the doors... or better yet, you go inside, and the Ice Capades are performing.

Either way, maybe Winter 2004/5 is the season of the professional zambonie driver simulator. Gotta make the money somehow!

Re:No worries about this with NHL

[Lando]

Sarcasm on:
It's nice to note though that the hockey players have found other ways to suppliment their incomes
Sarcasm off:

Re:No worries about this with NHL

[bcattwoo]

Those exhibition aren't in the NHL, so they can't be included. The game will just be a arbitration simulation. If you finally win and get the two sides to agree, then it unlocks a "bonus" level of like actual hockey. How quickly you can get the sides to agree determines whether you get a half season,quarter season, or no season at all. Oh, and you have to bring a screenshot of the agreement in order to buy NHL 2005.

Re:No worries about this with NHL

[crumley]

Or even better the owners complaining about they can't be expected to know how to spend their money. Someone has to help them stick to a budget.

Re:No worries about this with NHL

[Anonymous Coward]

i don't think thats funny at all. i've almost gone out and bought a nhl game just to let the computer play itself for a entire season, just for a hockey fix.

At least if the game is registered with the NHL, the added entertainment of recognizing the players' names and teams add to the realism.

Re:No worries about this with NHL

[Anonymous Coward]

Pro hockey does not exist OUTSIDE of videogames at this point

Perhaps you haven't heard, but there is quite a number of professional hockey leagues other than the NHL. E.g. AHL, IHL, ECHL. True that they're not considered Major League, but Minor Leagues is still a paycheck.

Re:No worries about this with NHL

[tuffy]

Either way, maybe Winter 2004/5 is the season of the professional zambonie driver simulator. Gotta make the money somehow!

Grand Theft Zamboni perhaps?

Re:No worries about this with NHL

[SetupWeasel]

I was watching an interview with the Commish, Bettman. He said that the big problem with the salaries was arbitration. Under the last CBA there was apparantly a clause where a player could take his existing contract to arbitration if he felt he was undervalued.

So if you have a team with deep pockets like the Red Wings pay $5 mil a year for a 20 goal/year scorer (just an example), a 20 goal scorer on the Penguins or Sabers making only 1.5 mil/year can go to arbitration. The overpayment of the Red Wings will give the player leverage with the arbiter and can force the small-market team to accept an inflated contract based on the new market value the Red Wings created.

If there is no cap there will always be owners in big markets that decide they can overspend. If it were limited to that, there would be no problem, but paying one player more affects the entire league. The point of the cap is to force the well-off teams to stick to a realistic budget.

Re:No worries about this with NHL

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell me about it... I just bought NHL2005, but it was Tiger Woods Golf with different player names.

Re:No worries about this with NHL

[Golias]

If it were limited to that, there would be no problem, but paying one player more affects the entire league.

Actually, even if it's limited to that, you have a problem. Look at baseball, where the Yankees get their first choice of player at every position, and then all other teams divide up the remaining players between them.

Small-market MLB teams have only two ways to win:

1. Develop a squad of AAA-leage players over six or seven losing seasons, hoping that your managers can hone them into a good enough club to take one or two cracks at a title before the whole staff leaves for free agency. This is a cycle the Minnesota Twins have gone through three times now, and can actually be kind of entertaining to witness, if you don't mind watching a few really horrid seasons immediately after each championship team's peak.

2. Blow your entire 10-year budget on a staff of hired guns on short-term contracts, and then wallow in mediocraty until the total loss of fan interest forces you to do it again. This has produced mighty, yet short-lived teams for Anneheim, Florida and Arizona, but it's hard to feel any real attachment to these squads of mercenaries. "Yankees vs. Whoever signed Randy Johnson This Year" gets a little old after a while.

Football has strong revenue sharing and basketball has a salary cap, which means that cities like Green Bay, Wisconsin and San Antonio, Texas can participate as real contenders and even build brief "dynasty" teams, rather than just show up as patsies for New York City to smack around.

Re:No worries about this with NHL

[Fig, formerly A.C.]

I read an article not long ago that claimed the owners were making more money off the rinks renting "open ice" to events than they were making playing NHL games because of the player overhead...

Re:No worries about this with NHL

[Control Group]

"Yankees vs. Whoever signed Randy Johnson This Year" gets a little old after a while.

Oh, I don't know. I think Yankees vs. Yankees would be an interesting game to watch. One of them has to lose.

(Of course, while looking for a URL to link to for those who didn't get the joke, I discovered that Johnson is apparently not going to the Yanks. I choose to not change my post, however, because I still think it should have been funny)

Re:No worries about this with NHL

[Zebbers]

The 2004 games have already been released. They play as normal. Im interested in how 2005 games will be, whether they will include europe stats and such in player profiles and if they will mention the lockout- if it ever ends.

Re:No worries about this with NHL

[Turmio]

Pro Hockey exists just fine without the NHL. About every moderately major European country runs a pro league or two.

Re:No worries about this with NHL

[Judecca]

Both EA's NHL 2005 and ESPN's NHL 2k5 are already out.

They include the rosters as they were at the time of release and the planned NHL schedule.

Nothing too shocking.

EA should form their own leagues

[djeddiej]

They already have enough money to start their own basketball league...

Re:EA should form their own leagues

[madprogrammer]

Dude! Good idea... maybe they can start a new pro hockey league!!

Praise Jebus

[jokell82]

At least the NBA had the smarts to know that many games with their name on it is better than a single one. It can only lead to more sales of games with the NBA license. Forcing someone to buy a particular game can only lead to resentment for either of the creators (NBA/NFL/whatever and the game maker alike).

Besides, the Sega Sports series (now sold as ESPN games) has been better than EA for a few years now.

Re:Praise Jebus

[Timesprout]

eh no, it forces no one to do or buy anything, it just means the NBA are free to hawk their brand name to multiple vendors. Short term this might generate more revenue for them but will also dilute their brand and associate them with some crap products.

Re:Praise Jebus

[mmkkbb]

Short term this might generate more revenue for them but will also dilute their brand and associate them with some crap products.

Not if they watch who they license their brand to.

Re:Praise Jebus

[0racle]

So just another day at the office then.

Re:Praise Jebus

[king-manic]

You do realize they have it exclusivly licenced to EA? Quality isn't their concern. Quantity is.

Re:Praise Jebus

[PeterFranks]

No... the only reason the NBA made this decision is because otherwise they'd lose money. They didn't do this out of concern for some high ideal. It all comes down to money.

Re:Praise Jebus

[EvilAlien]

... besides, its not like the NBA can be trusted to make a decision based on quality anyways. For example, please see the recent summer olympics.

This cheapshot brought to you buy: Frustrated Hockey Fans 'r' Us.

Re:Praise Jebus

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but the USA hockey team, full of NHL stars, didn't even qualify for those same olympics. How pathetic is that?!??

Re:Praise Jebus

[EvilAlien]

A winter sport sqad not making the summer olympics? Not very pathetic, IMO ;)

Team USA made it pretty far into the last winter olympics but got crushed by a superior opponent.

The reasoning is still bad

[PoderOmega]

They rejected it because it would not have made them enough money. If it did, they would sell in a heartbeat. The NBA doesn't care about our selection, our opinions, especially when will buy it anyway. Really, how many people are going to say "I'm not buying Madden 20xx because EA sucks!!" Probably not enough to impact anything.

Re:The reasoning is still bad

[jokell82]

Really, how many people are going to say "I'm not buying Madden 20xx because EA sucks!!" Probably not enough to impact anything.

I'm not buying it, but not for that reason. The Sega ESPN games are much better in my opinion, so I would usually buy them over Madden. However, with this new deal, I will probably skip out on both next year - leading to less money for ALL parties (including the NFL). Somehow I doubt I'm the only one who feels this way...

Re:The reasoning is still bad

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not buying Madden 20xx because football sucks.

Re:The reasoning is still bad

[gcaseye6677]

That's how business works. Companies enter into agreements with other companies if they think it will make them more money. The decision to enter into a deal is made by numbers, not politics or ideals. Public opinion can be a factor, but ultimately the company will select the option that will be most profitable for them. There's no other way to run a business, if you want to stay in business.

Re:The reasoning is still bad

[Loco3KGT]

Hahaha. How often when you release a product to the market do you worry about anything *other* than making money.

The NBA's job is to not make people happy and feel good about themselves. It's to make money. Hi, and welcome to reality.

Re:The reasoning is still bad

[Raven42rac]

Me. I have never liked the Madden series. Overrated. The NFL2K series was a serious challenger, and had to be eliminated. Resistance is futile, you will be assimi.....merged with and entered into exclusive deals with. The corporate takeover of America is complete.

Re:The reasoning is still bad

[PoderOmega]

I totally agree with your statement. But they way it was posted on slashdot sounds like a victory against our new enemy here. Microsoft: Old and Busted, EA: New Hotness.

Re:The reasoning is still bad

[Snuffub]

That's a little unfair. They do the right thing and turn EA down and just because some guy at ign speculates that one of the reasons was based on how much money they would get you extrapolate that that must have been the only reason and you criticize them.

Re:The reasoning is still bad

[DaFallus]

Well, they aren't going to make money if they piss off all their fans, now are they? They won't have people voting for the construction of new stadiums or anyone buying tickets if they piss all over everyone. So you are right that all they really care about is money, but in order to make money they have to make us happy.

Re:The reasoning is still bad

[Khaed]

Microsoft pisses off people all the time, and they make money.

Re:The reasoning is still bad

[ChaosDiscord]

...ultimately the company will select the option that will be most profitable for them.

Indeed, these days a large company will typically select the option that will be most profitable in the short term for them. Does the plan doom them in the long run? So what! Will the plan given another company (EA) more control over them, seriously hampering future options and profits? The CEO will be long gone.

The NFL made a stupid decision; they may make more money for the next few years, but they've handed control off to EA. Where once they had several companies fighting yearly to give them money, there is no only EA. This will weaken the other companies, making it harder for them to compete. This in turn means EA has little incentive to push themselves.

Re:The reasoning is still bad

[gcaseye6677]

This is a disturbing trend in many companies. But I think the blame ultimately lies with investors, as the board and the execs can only do what they are allowed to by the stockholders. When investors are looking to make a quick buck and then dump the stock, executives are encouraged to do what you just described and the company will likely face bankruptcy in the future. Investors looking for long term value should choose companies that have responsible boards, where the common stockholders' wishes are respected, and where dividends are paid. There is less money available for executive compensation when profits must be distributed to shareholders. The temptation to bet the company on some risky venture is a lot less when the investors, board members and executives are all in it for the long haul. Ultimately, these type of changes will only come about when investors demand them and quit investing money in companies that only care about next quarters' profits.

Re:The reasoning is still bad

[geoffspear]

I'm sure the NFL owners will be kicking themselves and come begging for you to rescue them with your brilliant financial sense when the league goes completely bankrupt next year

Re:The reasoning is still bad

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not how business always work. A lot of politics go into it. If some group or person within the company doesn't like something about the deal, and is powerful enough, the deal is killed. It's easy to think that money is the bottom line. And I know this from experience. We weren't able to finish a deal with Company A because a higher up was good friends with a higher up at company B. Company A made more sense financial and technologically to the company.

Re:The reasoning is still bad

[GlassHeart]

Public opinion can be a factor, but ultimately the company will select the option that will be most profitable for them. There's no other way to run a business, if you want to stay in business.

There's a difference between making a profit and staying and business, and maximizing your profits to the exclusion of all else. I believe there are many ways to run a profitable business.

Re:The reasoning is still bad

[pclminion]

Indeed, these days a large company will typically select the option that will be most profitable in the short term for them. Does the plan doom them in the long run? So what!

You can't hold the CEO 100% responsible for this type of attitude. Many times the corporate management does see the folly in a particular course of action, but takes it anyway. This is because the shareholders are generally stupid creatures and will sue the ass off the board of directors if they do anything that goes against what they think they should be doing.

As we all know here, 99% of people can't be reasoned with. It's easier to just give in and hope you can escape before the shit hits the fan.

Re:The reasoning is still bad

[winwar]

"But I think the blame ultimately lies with investors, as the board and the execs can only do what they are allowed to by the stockholders."

You have got to be kidding. The board and execs can do pretty much what they want. If they want to drive the company into the ground, it is unlikely the investors can stop them.... Investors (if you mean stockholders) really have very little power. Large institutional stockholders have more power. But as long as the debt payments are made (the lender can hold real power), the board and execs are pretty much untouchable.

"Investors looking for long term value should choose companies that have responsible boards, where the common stockholders' wishes are respected, and where dividends are paid."

Huh? You are contradicting yourself. Didn't you just say the investors were the problem? Now the boards should obey the wishes of the stockholders? I thought you said it was the other way around? (I am using stockholder and investor interchangeably here, as you did in your first sentence).

"Ultimately, these type of changes will only come about when investors demand them and quit investing money in companies that only care about next quarters' profits."

Personally, I hate it when people use the word "investor" or "investment" and "next quarter" or "short term" together. More appropriate would be speculator/speculation and next quarter or short term. Investment implies long term, and frankly under a year isn't. Of course that would offend a lot of people....

Re:The reasoning is still bad

[gcaseye6677]

You have got to be kidding. The board and execs can do pretty much what they want. If they want to drive the company into the ground, it is unlikely the investors can stop them.... Investors (if you mean stockholders) really have very little power. Large institutional stockholders have more power. But as long as the debt payments are made (the lender can hold real power), the board and execs are pretty much untouchable.

That's precisely the problem I wrote about. I even proposed a solution: pay dividends. If the dividend sucks, stockholders dump the stock, it goes down in value, management gets replaced. Ultimately, the decision makers in a company need to be accountable to the owners (you know, the shareholders).

Personally, I hate it when people use the word "investor" or "investment" and "next quarter" or "short term" together. More appropriate would be speculator/speculation and next quarter or short term. Investment implies long term, and frankly under a year isn't. Of course that would offend a lot of people....

Personally, I think you're high right now. You must have read what I wrote but it clearly didn't sink in. A stockholder is an investor in a corporation. They are also an owner. It doesn't matter how much they own or how long they hold it. Next time you're going to spout off like some financial genius, please at least try to make a defendable point.

Re:The reasoning is still bad

[analog_line]

I wouldn't have bought a football game at all if EA hadn't sewn up all the official NFL games under their name. Now I'm considering Midway's new Blitz" Playmakers title just because it sounds substantially different and interesting from the normal football crap. Even ESPN's football games have been pretty bloody boring. Nothing new to see here, just a few more camera angles, "more realistic" physics, dreckcetera. Seems that with Midways new found freedom they have the opportunity to make something actually new and different for a change. Hopefully others will follow in their stead and actually create some REAL competition for a change.

Way to go NBA. It's about time you didn't mess up.

[ramdac]

I'm glad the NBA decided against signing an exclusive deal with EA. with only EA making the games, it somewhat stifles competition, and eventually makes for crappy games.
Besides, EA treats their employees like crap.
Now if only the NBA would stop fining Mark Cuban for being a cool coach.

EA's basketball game suggestion

[bird603568]

EA's hockey game has the fighting. Artest likes to fight and hes in the NBA. The NHL is on strike. EA want to put a strangel hold on the NBA. Maybe teh should put a feather where a huge fight breaks out and Artest stranges somebody

Re:EA's basketball game suggestion

[Anonymous Coward]

Whether or not you're being serious, I can't help but laugh at you. Yes at you.

Re:EA's basketball game suggestion

[Anonymous Coward]

You suck.

Good call

[H_Fisher]

The NBA made a good decision, I believe, by not going with EA's monopolistic deal. As much as EA has been criticized lately for their practices, I'd wonder just what advantage the NFL, or anyone else, could get out of an exclusive contract with such a company. What could possibly be the upshot for the NFL?

That said, I'd be a lot more upset about the aforementioned NFL deal if it meant we'd only see Madden games for one platform. That's not going to happen anytime soon, I don't think. But imagine a day when the only place you might find "official" NFL or NBA games would be the PSn, and all the other consoles would have brand-x football and basketball games.

Re:Good call

[SoTuA]

What could possibly be the upshot for the NFL?

Why, an obscenely high quantity of money, of course! You think an exclusive license goes for the same money a plain-vanilla license to use the names and such goes for? Think again.

That said, I'd be a lot more upset about the aforementioned NFL deal if it meant we'd only see Madden games for one platform. That's not going to happen anytime soon, I don't think. But imagine a day when the only place you might find "official" NFL or NBA games would be the PSn, and all the other consoles would have brand-x football and basketball games.

_If the game in itself is good_, I don't see how upsetting it would be to have a player named "Joe Sixpack" instead of "Joe Andruzzi".

Re:Good call

[superstick58]

_If the game in itself is good_, I don't see how upsetting it would be to have a player named "Joe Sixpack" instead of "Joe Andruzzi"

That may be true for some people, but for many sports fans the real draw of the game is to play as your favorite team and players. I'm sure the majority of sport gamers do not appreciate gameplay as much as the typical /. reader does. They want a fast paced game with stats and familiar names and places so its just like being at the game itself.

Re:Good call

[Skim123]

_If the game in itself is good_, I don't see how upsetting it would be to have a player named "Joe Sixpack" instead of "Joe Andruzzi".

I am a big fan of the NBA console games, and having real teams/players is vitally important, IMO. Yes, the majority of the fun is in the game play, in setting up your offense, getting guys to move without the ball, hitting open Js, etc. But a large part of the fun is in knowing these players. It makes the game more interesting in part because you know their real-life attributes. You know, in a way, what plays to run for what players, what to expect, etc.

It's also fun to see two teams you like matching up in the video arena. And the games allow you to play the actual schedule so you can, in a manner of speaking, follow along with your favorite team and play their real life games on the video game before watching them (or vice-a-versa).

Removing Competition

[drakethegreat]

Thats all this is. I actually find it disgusting that the NFL signed abord. Lets give into one corporation to try to make money rather then allow all game producing companies to potentially make a sports game involving our league. Well I can tell you this much. I don't like Madden's voice so I won't be picking up the next EA NFL game.

Re:Removing Competition

[zoobaby]

Well this is how the NFL has traditionally done business. They sign exclusive rights dealsm and take in big dollars. This is one of the reasons why the NFL is not hurting for $$.

EA Denial - RTFA - Read the Follow-up Article

[Anonymous Coward]

http://sports.ign.com/articles/575/575019p1.html

Looks like EA has denied making any such offer in the first place according to the followup on this article at IGN.

Re:EA Denial - RTFA - Read the Follow-up Article

[Recoil_42]

EA also steadfastly denied making the Madden deal for months on end up until the press release actually came out.

Don't believe everything EA says.

Why is it fun?

[CodeWanker]

I've never understood basketball games on the computer. It's one of the few sports I can go out and try for real. Of course, I DO like being the bad guy in games I play... So I guess I can get the gangsta out of my system with one.

Re:Why is it fun?

[Rude Turnip]

That's the only type of sports game I would consider buying (probably in addition to hockey). Football games are too complicated and baseball is more about stats than the game. Basketball is just like soccer, but you get to use your hands.

Re:Why is it fun?

[madprogrammer]

You use video games to replace real life? Maybe you should just stick to EverQuest.

Turn off the console, buy yourself a football and head out to the field with your friends... Better yet, buy some used skates and a stick and head to the rink!

Re:Why is it fun?

[squall14716]

B--but I don't have any friends.

maybe they'll give the contract to someone else

[Crimsane]

I wonder if they aren't waiting for THQ to make an offer, after they saw what a great job the did with WWE: Smackdown Vs Raw.

Add EA to the Slashdot list

[Anonymous Coward]

I've noticed recently the noticable increase in EA articles portraying them as the next evil corporation. I'm sure they do some bad things here and there, but it's silly the crusade that slashdot embarks on once the company becomes the cool thing to hate.

So Microsoft, SCO, the Media, MPAA, RIAA, George W. Bush, the US Government should be proud to have a new member on their team of the slashdot heretics.

Oh, the poor, poor NBA

[Neil Blender]

I guess high priced tickets, concessions and TV contracts just aren't enough to cover things like Kevin Garnets 11 year $305 million salary.

Re:Oh, the poor, poor NBA

[lateralus_1024]

Pfft...oh he soo wishes it was that much.
That scrub only makes $120mil over 6years. League sources think his agent & the team owner screwed him big time. I bet right about now he wishes he had played college ball.

Re:Oh, the poor, poor NBA

[Dizzle]

Golly, what a scrub. While he's making a paltry $20mil/year I'll be laughing all the way to the bank... asking for a loan. I think our versions of "screwed" are drastically different.

Re:Oh, the poor, poor NBA

[Golias]

You know, in any other country Kevin Garnet would be a bum or clerk or something.

No, he would be a soccer star, and worshipped as a god. The guy is seven feet tall, strong as a bull, graceful as a cat, and moves like an olympic sprinter. He's a perfect genetic specimen of human physcal perfection who continues to display a work ethic which few atheletes even pretend they have.

The fact that people pay guys $305 million to bounce a ball is idiotic.

Good thing he makes $20 Million a year, not $305.

What would be idiotic is if he was only paid a six-figure salary when his performance generates billions of dollars for both the Timberwolves and the NBA in general.

When I buy a ticket to an Wolves game, I'm not paying to see Glen Taylor own a basketball team, I'm paying to see Kevin Garnett play basketball, so it's only right that he keeps most of the money from my ticket.

Buckled under?

[SetupWeasel]

The NFL was not crushed by EA's awesome might. EA decided to pay the NFL an ungodly amount of money for exclusive use of properties that they own. The only thing the NFL cares about is money. It doesn't matter to them what the ESPN game will do. It doesn't matter to them how powerful EA is.

You don't need an NFL licence to make a good football game. I think they should make a "Historical World Leaders Football 2K6," because I want to hear the phrase "Zone Blitzkrieg."

Re:Buckled under?

[stratjakt]

The NFL went looking for an exclusive deal, and EA won.

But slashdot groupthink has decided that EA is an evil corporate giant and everything they do is malicious, so for the record, EA's goon squad busted into the superbowl, killed a couple guys, pulled Janet Jacksons bra off, and made them sign the paperwork.

Now lets hear more idiotic whining about their "illegal monopoly".

Re:Buckled under?

[gclef]

Oh, man, this is a flash game waiting to happen...Choose your offensive and defensive coordinators from a list of historical figures, each of which has a distinct play style. Hitler as a defensive coordinator: always blitz. Always. Ghandi as an offensive coordinator: go for the least confrontational play possible (probably short screens). Combine that with some really bent inter-play video, and you've got yourself a hit.

Re:Buckled under?

[jimmyCarter]

Similar situation with DirectTV paying the NFL a large sum of money to televise the NFL's Sunday Ticket package exclusively on DirectTV. I can get every other league package on my cable setup except the NFL and they just re-upped for five more years.

Fantasy football fans can feel the pain..

Re:Buckled under?

[sharkey]

It doesn't matter to them what the ESPN game will do.

We know what it will do: The AI sportscasters will natter on endlessly about the trivia of the day and what their childeren's diapers held, while the camera swings away from the action to focus on animated fans wearing interesting clothes and the ticker shows the results of the play (which are almost, but not entirely, unlike the actual results of the play on the "field") credited to the player farthest from the ball.

Um, no

[theVP]

EA has already said that no bid ever took place. They contacted IGN and told them that they never made a bid for it. http://sports.ign.com/articles/575/575019p1.html Might I also add that this is a rumor based on a rumor based on "sources"

John Madden

[Anonymous Coward]

John Madden basketball just doesn't conjure up the right images.

Re:John Madden

[tbone1]

John Madden basketball just doesn't conjure up the right images.

Hell, Madden rarely does this in football. Why do you think Pat Summerall drank so much?

Re:John Madden

[Reignking]

"I beg your pardon?" (Summerall's favorite quote for when he couldn't figure out what the hell was going on)

Re:John Madden

[Anonymous Coward]

You made me spit my soda out :)

Re:John Madden

[Anonymous Coward]

Steelers Tickets are much better than playing a dumb video game!

We want dirt!

[Anonymous Coward]

Regarding the excusivity deal with the NFL, what kind of money are we talking here? There are no figures mentioned and really no details.

NFL WANTED an Exclusivity Deal

[Anonymous Coward]

The NFL themselves decided they wanted an exclusivity contract with a publisher. EA merely bid and won. What the hell do you expect them to do when an NFL branded game is one of their best selling titles? Sit on their asses and let someone else get the license so they can't make one of their best selling titles?

As for 'prices going up' - prices have come DOWN in years. Video game publishers only see a portion of that $50 - they get about $30. Lower prices and it's the brick and mortar stores who suffer. The ESPN sports titles at $20 were probably losing money, and most likely just a means to undercut the market and hurt the competition, and lure in consumers to a new brand that they could jack the price back up to $50. Your first couple hits are cheap... then when they've lured you away they start charging full price.

$50 has been the 'sweet spot' that will sell, consumers generally balk at $60 or higher.

Re:NFL WANTED an Exclusivity Deal

[pappy97]

That's exactly what I was going to say. I wonder why PuppiesOnAcid likes spreading lies?

Perhaps he/she wants people to believe EA is the next Microsoft. EA might be evil, but there is no reason to lie about the EA/NFL situation.

Re:NFL WANTED an Exclusivity Deal

[pappy97]

About the price issue, I also agree.

Weren't the hot N64 titles, at their price, originally priced at $69.99 or higher?

$50 is a good medium for hot titles like Madden.

Re:NFL WANTED an Exclusivity Deal

[kesuki]

when nintendo had price control over the market (eg: they were only competing with sega) Games varied in price from $65-$100 on titles, and thosae prices were all the way back to SNES days, Square games like Chrono Trigger come to mind as an example of a $100 game. Remeber back then carts were using something like $20-40 worth of silicon to store all the data. nowadays you can practically use commodity grade flash memory chips instead of custom read only memory chips nintendo has been using.
I mean if they can sell a 256MB (2048 Gbit) SD memory card for $20, then they could fit a whole lot of game on one $20 'cart' made out of commodity flash. the 'average' GBA cart is 7MB in size Most of them are using 8MB carts, while older ones used 4MB and some newer ones use 16MB.
So one 256MB card could hold 32 GBA games. Two advantages of using flash, 1. if a game is released 'buggy' patches can somehow be made for it... 2. games could intentionally be put on a much larger cart than the game needed Eg: SimCity, and you could save a ton of city files. although technically, nintendo can already use flash chips for game save data, with GBA and DS I'm not sure how 'much' for game save they can put on a cart for really save file intensive games like the Simcity/The Sims style games etc. But people have grown used to being able to find games for $20-30 if they're a bit older or less popular...

Re:NFL WANTED an Exclusivity Deal

[will_die]

It is far less then $30 out of a $50 going to the publishers.
Half of the cost is going to the wholesaler and to the seller, rather standard for most items. Then you have the development company who will get around $15, which they have to pay royalties and costs assicated with development, any loans they got, and some other costs. Then you have publishers who will get the remaining $15, and have costs of manufacturing, advertising, etc.

Re:NFL WANTED an Exclusivity Deal

[necrognome]

Actually, EA pitched a similar exclusivity deal to the NFL a few years ago (which the league declined at the time). This kind of thing has been EA's idea for quite some time.

Are you sure?

[wombatmobile]

Forcing someone to buy a particular game can only lead to resentment for either of the creators

I'm not sure what you mean by "forcing" unless you are living in some Stalinist geography where the government makes people buy games or something.

Regarding your thesis on outcomes, are you sure there is only one possible outcome?

What if they make something people like a lot? What would happen then?

Re:EA probably allowed players to go into the stan

[Shadow Wrought]

Then you have to go and unlock the cheat codes to get the best attorney. If you do it right you get Johnnie Cochrane!

Slashdot logic strikes again.

[mumblestheclown]

How do you know it's not the NFL that's screwing EA? For example, if hypothetically EA paid the NFL 100 billion dollars for the licensing rights, then one would argue that it was hardly the NFL's "buckling."

At the end of the day, the NFL was getting X money from EA and Y from others before the deal. the NFL decided that the deal that EA put on the table was worth more than X+Y or they wouldn't have gone for it. EA figures their additional revenues will make up for the additional licensing fees, but certainly they have no guarantee of this (at the very least, before people who bought BOTH games would contribute to both X and Y.. now at most they contribute to just X).

Maybe it wasn't that the NBA didn't "buckle".. maybe just the effective basketball monopoly that is the NBA decided that it could make more bucks without exclusivity.

No Fear

[echocharlie]

The NBA has no reason to be afraid of EA. It has Ron Artest on its side (or did until it suspended him for attacking fans in the stands).

The NBA probably overheard EA execs...

[Frank The Tank]

"What are we doing in this meeting, EA?" "Same thing we do every meeting, execs... try to take over the WORLD!"

Re:Way to go NBA. It's about time you didn't mess

[Anonymous Coward]

Mark Cuban is an owner, not a coach.

Re:Way to go NBA. It's about time you didn't mess

[stupidfoo]

Now if only the NBA would stop fining Mark Cuban for being a cool coach.

You follow the NBA _really_ closely, don't you?

EA allows defense

[SoupGuru]

I heard the deal was rejected because EA allows players to defend... mush too unrealistic in the NBA's eyes.

Caving?

[Anonymous Coward]

The market realities were different between the franchises and the leagues so the outcomes were different. The NFL no more 'caved' then the NBA didn't cave. IF EA had a lock on NBA gaming, the NBA would have gone with EA. This is not a morals judgement.

Hear that? The sound of zamboni's rusting

[AtariAmarok]

We can't have hockey's beloved behemoths rust away at rinkside. Robot-fighting modifications are in order to bring activity to the rinks again. And with their size, they'll blow up real good. I'm sure we could even get Comedy Central to pick up the new "Battle-'Bones" show!

Re:Hear that? The sound of zamboni's rusting

[Feynman]

No, it's the sound of Zambonis exploding.

EA, NBC: No matter who wins, word usage loses

[AEton]

From article summary: "Although the NFL buckled under EA's mighty stronghold..."

Main Entry: strong-hold
Pronunciation: 'stro[ng]-"hOld
Function: noun
1 : a fortified place
2 a : a place of security or survival <one of the last strongholds of the ancient Gaelic language -- George Holmes> b : a place dominated by a particular group or marked by a particular characteristic <a Republican stronghold> <strongholds of snobbery -- Lionel Trilling>

EA won the match by camping! Losers!

(Later in the article summary the word 'stranglehold' is correctly quoted. Was submitter going for variety with the use of nonsynonyms?)

Warren Sapp

[Anonymous Coward]

The NFL let EA do the agreement because ESPN offended the football gods by putting Warren Sapp on the cover. Also, now that there is the NFL Network, the NFL is now somewhat in competition with ESPN. Exclusive partnerships allow for all kinds of neat perks, like hooking up with NFL Films, etc.

I just hope they have David Hayter change the intro for Madden 2006:

EA Sports. It's not in anybody else's game but ours.

Re:Warren Sapp

[sachmet]

You do realize the NFL network was spawned by ESPN, right? Rich Eisen, one of the mainstays, is/was an ESPN anchor, and just made a switch. It's the same way nba.com is run by ESPN.

Re:EA probably allowed players to go into the stan

[Man in Spandex]

and Chewbacca dunks from downtown! It does not make sense!

Yes...

[_PimpDaddy7_]

I heard at the board meetings, if you throw a cup at the CEO he chop blocks you, then goes beserk punching other people...Truly a dog-eat-dog culture... :)

Re:Yes...

[SetupWeasel]

No, they just bring in Terry Tate: Office Linebacker.

"The pain train's comin'! WOO-WOO!"

5 year deal could well be money wasted

[Newton Heath]

If I was a game developer for any sport I would definitely build in the ability to download player and team names as well as graphics/logo's from the web. Then just leave it to a sport geek with too much time on their hands to make the data available for free. Doesn't this seem like a no brainer given consoles are connected to the web somewhat now, but more so down the line in the next generation?

Re:5 year deal could well be money wasted

[Skim123]

If I was a game developer for any sport I would definitely build in the ability to download player and team names as well as graphics/logo's from the web

Many do, through XBOX Live or PS2's equivalent, but you have to go through their site. That is, you can't just type in a URL. (My only experience here is through XBOX, btw.) Once they have a means to let the end user enter a URL your theory would work, but I wouldn't be surprised if such actions (allowing the user to specify where to navigate) was prohibited by integrating with XBOX live or the other console online services.

Re:5 year deal could well be money wasted

[swv3752]

I have a USB drive for my PS2 that lets me download saved games and transfer them over to a memory card. There are also devices to allow memory cards to be accessed on the computer. Easy way to load in say a player list.

Re:5 year deal could well be money wasted

[Control Group]

Actually, I would be surprised if it was prohibited. For once, "we" have corporations on our side. EA's got the license, but I'm quite sure ESPN/Sega wants to make money by continuing their 2k* football franchise. It's very much in their interest, then, to make player created rosters available through Live!.

Then it's just a question of whether EA has the desire and the cash to make MS prevent other video game makers from doing such a thing. It's one thing for EA to convince MS to set up a service such that EA can charge to be online, it's another for EA to get MS to limit Live! functionality for other developers. Not that it would be impossible, but it's a whole different game. Most importantly, it's probably not one EA would need to play; they can count on the player pic/NFL logo on the cover of the box to sell copies regardless of whether another game can be made "sort of like the real thing."

The PS2 has the advantage of not having central servers under Sony's control; it should be trivial for a game to leverage the web for this purpose. Which is yet another reason MS would likely allow the functionality: they don't want to encourage PS2-only sporting titles (after all, that's why they buckled to EA in the first place).

The wild card, of course, is the court system, which could conceivably decide that hosting rosters making use of the real information violates the licensing deal. IANAL and don't know if that's a real possibility or not. But even if it is, there's enough money floating around ABC/MS to make me think that, at worst, EA/the NFL would end up only able to go after individual uploaders of the information...and we all know how well that works.

Um, no.

[lavar78]

Besides, the Sega Sports series (now sold as ESPN games) has been better than EA for a few years now.

No, it hasn't. ESPN is very good this year, but Madden still has the edge IMO.

Small typo there...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't believe anything EA says.

and play the Nike alstars.

[Anonymous Coward]

They're the other guys with too much money.

PuppiesOnAcid is SPREADING LIES

[pappy97]

"Although the NFL buckled under EA's mighty stronghold in the video game football market (Madden)"

This statement is not true. The NFL solicitied bids for video game exclusivity. The NFL now is preferring to do everything they possibly can with exclusive deals.

I don't know how Slashdotters allow people like PuppiesOnAcid to spread such lies.

Re:PuppiesOnAcid is SPREADING LIES

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not really lies. Actually, EA admitted that it lobbied for a few YEARS before the NFL decided. So in essence, it was a really long sales pitch. They jsut finally gave in.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/2004/12/13/news_61149 77.html

Not that I agree the NFL buckled ... they simply went after the easy money now.

Re:PuppiesOnAcid is SPREADING LIES

[slapout]

1. Get an official NFL license
2. Release poor product (all money went to license)
3. ????
4. Profit!

I get the idea that number 3 involves suing someone, but I'm not sure...

The NFL *didn't* "buckle"

[semifamous]

The NFL offered the exclusive license. EA came up with the highest bid.

Negotiations broke down when....

[lateralus_1024]

Negotions between EA Sports and NBA/NBAPA broke down when the NBA demanded full rights to Tattoo art and game soundtrack royalties from the likes of Shaquille O'neal, Allen Iverson and Ron Artest.
The NBA was also wanted veto power over who EA would put on the cover of the game boxes. EA wanted Kobe Bryant or Carmelo Anthony, and the NBA wanted this man.

That's too bad...

[lpangelrob2]

...I eagerly await any remake of the best basketball game I ever owned.

Might I also mention it was the only basketball game I ever owned? But it had the best halftime shows...

Re:That's too bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

A certain other basketball game of that era is no longer being remade since it would require either (A) loads of money to go to the NBA or (B) all the players names to be changed. Sheesh even I, anonymous coward, have heard of many of those players.

Mod Up!

[flithm]

Finally some sense. If I had mod points I'd do it myself. But then I'm just an anonymous coward. What the hell do I know.

Re:Mod Up!

[Opie812]

But then I'm just an anonymous coward.

10 bucks says you're actually flithm.

Re:Mod Up!

[cakefool]

see that little checkbox, just below the comment box? Yeah, the one that says "Post Anonymously"

D'oh

Re:Mod Up!

[flithm]

Doh! I'm always forgetting minor details... a checkbox here, order of magnitude there. At least my name's not Michael Bolton.

ballhoggers

[Doc Ruby]

The NBA is the monopoly. If you want to start a basketball business, you have to play the NBA's game, including bribes, rules which can keep a specific team from winning or recruiting winners, and a club of competitors who decide who gets to compete, in what cities, and across the country. They're almost as sinister as the MLB.

Re:ballhoggers

[TykeClone]

Yeah, there are no other basketball leagues in the US http://www.logoserver.com/IBA.html

The NBA, NHL (when they're playing!) and NFL are not monopolies - they're just seen as the best of the best. They have the resources to hire the best athletes, but that doesn't make them a monopoly. MLB actually has a federally allowed monopoly on baseball, but the other sports dont.

Now just because a league gets the best athletes doesn't mean that competing leagues (or in the case of football and basketball, the NCAA) can't put an entertaining and good brand of the sport on the field.

Re:ballhoggers

[Doc Ruby]

Monopolies are not merely a single vendor in a market. Market control defines monopolies, like Microsoft. The IBA hardly threatens the NBA's control of TV and ticket sales of pro basketball in the US. This isn't about the quality of play (the NCAA trumps the NBA there); it's about market economics and control, which the NBA dominates like Shaq.

Re:ballhoggers

[TykeClone]

The IBA (or the CBA, the European leagues, or even Division A high school basketball) does not in any way threaten the NBA - but they are different versions of the same product - sports entertainment on the court.

Any time that you have two fairly evenly matched teams where the players actually care about the outcome playing, you'll have a good, entertaining game to watch. (Whether or not you get that with the NBA is another arguement)

EA to become the next M$

[agtorange]

Well the subject line says it all.

I agree

[Anonymous Coward]

I enjoy playing Basketball and Soccer video games for the same reasons I enjoy watching them and playing them in reality. The sports are pretty continuous with a good pace and combination of skill, strategy, and the ability to make decisions on the fly.

Hockey is alright sometimes, but it seems like there is much less finesse and control than there is in the aformentioned sports, although skilled hockey players are incredible to watch it's hard for me to really relate or see it happen.

Football and Baseball are way too slowly paced for me as I can rarely sit through an entire game.

I'm a monopoly of one

[therblig]

1. Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service
I control the means of producing or selling my services.
2. A company or group having exclusive control over a commercial activity
I have exclusive control over my activities.
3. Something that is exclusively possessed or controlled
I have exclusive possession and control of myself, (except for the DOJ part of me, of course.)

I am a monopoly of myself. That doesn't make me bad, though other things might. So if EA has a monopoly on the NFL games market, that doesn't make it inherently a harmful thing. The beneficiary of this monopoly (whether or not they got a good deal is another matter) is the NFL. When I watch my local team play, the only beer available is Budweiser, but if Coors offered them more money next year, I'm sure that they would be the only beer available.

EA paid for these exclusive rights, and in a few years, they will either have to ante up and pay again, or someone else will do it instead. It would be a harmful monopoly if somehow EA had made it so that nobody else could bring any football games to the market, but that isn't the case, any more than the exclusion of Coors from my football stadium keeps it from being available at my convenience store.

Re:I'm a monopoly of one

[Londovir]

Your points are well reasoned and stated, but there's a minor difference: it's a demonstrable fact that people prefer games with officially licensed teams, players, stadiums, etc. I won't bother quoting stats, but there's been a number of times where a licensed game trounced its competitor (without a license) despite being rated poorly (think QBC for N64). People just like having the real names, and furthermore, like not having to manually edit every roster, player, etc for that level of authenticity. That's even more a given now that you see games with little or no difference from year to year except the updated rosters.

So, it is quite likely that this licensing agreement will cause EA's market share to grow at the expense of their competitors. Although it's a passive action (ie, not something EA is actively out there doing), it still will be harmful to the other competitors.

Your beer analogy is a good one, but it has the same problem. Your argument is one of restricted product placement, such as only being available in a store or place. This isn't the case. This is not being able to use an ingredient in your product. For example, what if Budweiser somehow got the 5 year exclusive right to use yeast or hops in their beer, and no other beer could legally use that ingredient? It's not inconceivable to see that the other beers would suffer in sales, because their product wouldn't be considered as appealing to the consumer with the absence of a vital ingredient. Well, for many, many console and PC gamers, a real team/player/stadium/uniform/logo is a vital ingredient to the "football beer", so to speak.

Already done, methinks

[deacon brown]

The PC version of the football game (with Vick on the cover, the title slips me 4 a second) allows you to update rosters from the web. The code is already there, it's just a marketing/logistical decision to enable it on the console at this point.

The games aren't realistic anyway.

[Anonymous Coward]

Where are the razor blades, 9MM pistols, and beaten prison guards?

NBA can screw themselves

[upsidedown_duck]

Do they even know the meaning of sportsmanship? Were the players that beat up fans kicked out of the NBA or just given a slap on the wrist? Just suspensions? What a bunch of greedy pricks.

Re:NBA can screw themselves

[BumbaCLot]

You are a fucking idiot. Ron Artest is losing 5 Million dollars for punching someone. Maybe that is a slap on the wrist if you are the Sultan of Brunei or Bill Gates but it is a criminal issue not anything to do with his employment. Professional sports players make money because fans want to pay them to see them in action.

Re:EA probably allowed players to go into the stan

[Shadow Wrought]

LOL! Oh man what a great visual. I wonder how many arms Chewie would rip out of their sockets if his team lost? Even Ron Artest would look good in comparison. Well maybe not...

Monopolies, Legal or Otherwise

[ppp]

Geez, you guys just don't get it. This last year, a COMPETITOR of EA Sports released an NFL Football videogame, EPSN NFL 2k5, for 19.95. This forced EA to eventually reduce the price of it's product, Madden 2005. Consumers saved money due to this COMPETITION. I think this was a good thing.

Now, the ESPN NFL series is as dead as dead can be. Madden will come out next year, and it will be 50 bucks. And I wonder how much pressure there will be to make the product as innovative.

I don't care whether this meets the legal definition of a monoply - the consumer loses in any case.

Re:Monopolies, Legal or Otherwise

[Reignking]

It seems to me that EA was well aware of what the competition was doing. Instead of dropping the price immediately, they went to their (annual) buy-2 -get-1 free offer. They simply offered consumers a different "deal."

The interesting part is that this is the first year that they didn't offer the deal for the PC -- where ESPN's game was not offered.

EA'a newest game.........

[Anonymous Coward]

EA's new Game, NBA fan Punch-out.

Re:EA probably allowed players to go into the stan

[cens0r]

To get a good idea of what this looks like visually, go to a Seattle Supersonics game. Their mascot (Squatch) is supposed to be a sasquatch, but looks like some sort of weird cross between chewie and teen wolf. And he dunks!

Which response to chose?

[tbone1]

The NBA has no reason to be afraid of EA. It has Ron Artest on its side (or did until it suspended him for attacking fans in the stands).

1) What's more, they have Shawn Kemp's kids, the largest voting block this side of AARP.

2) Better, they have the Pistons' season ticket holders and the rest of the Michigan State Pen.

3) Not to mention Kobe Bryant for p1$$ing them off.

Re: Boycott Madden

[harborpirate]

I can tell you that I, for one, will not be buying ANY EA sports titles for the next 5 years. Furthermore, if I receive any as a gift, I will return them.

I simply refuse to support these strong-armed tactics from EA. That corporation is rife with slimeballs. Just take a look at what they're doing to their employees - they're going to be sued over some of their practices. http://www.gamespot.com/news/2004/11/11/news_61129 98.html If they can't be trusted to treat their own employees with respect, I certainly don't think you can expect them to do so with their consumers.

The next 5 years looks like a very dark time for football games. My only hope is that the Sega/ESPN franchise works around this problem by allowing players to swap player created rosters online.

EA officials say that development of Madden won't stangnate, but I say that's bull. Why bother to innovate when all you have to do is release the same game with updated rosters every year? Honestly its like they're being allowed to exclusively lease a money printing machine.

I'll be purchasing alternative products, and I encourage others to do the same. Don't support these monopolistic tactics.

my idea for the other NFL/football game makers...

[jaden]

It's simple... just make the teams/play configs loadable over the network!

PS/2 has a network adapter (built-in on the slim one)
XBox has networking
hell - even my Gamecube has ethernet, not that it's been used for anything sice I bought it.
Every future console will have it too.

If you make team, player, league, etc. settings loadable over the network it won't take more than a week after the release for some fanatic to compile all the info and distribute it. This has the added bonus of giving all those historical players names... not just number & you can update it live over the course of the season for injuries, performance, etc!

Sure... if you do this well odds are they wouldn't buy your game next year since the new config would come out - but maybe that'll drive some real innovation... not to mention sticking it to EA who will charge through the nose for the next X releases of madden.

Any takers ? ESPN Football 200x ?

Isn't the NBA a division of Nike?

[Animats]

The NBA is basically a marketing unit of Nike. Maybe EA and Nike can cut a deal.

In There, you could buy Nike products for your online avatar. With real money. Apply that thinking to a NBA/Nike/EA deal, and you really have something. "Buy Nike Air Jordans and your players can jump higher!"

(Whatever happened to Michael Jordan, anyway?)

Re:Isn't the NBA a division of Nike?

[untaken_name]

(Whatever happened to Michael Jordan, anyway?)

Um...he retired. People can't play sports at the pro level forever, you know. They do this weird thing called aging. I hear that happens to others, too.

This time in English.

[Anonymous Coward]

Electronic Art's hockey game has fighting. Ron Artest, a player in the National Basketball Association, likes to fight. The National Hockey League and it's Players Association are currently not speaking to each other, and no Collective Bargaining Agreement currently exists. Electronic Arts wants to be the exclusive video game licensee of the National Basketball Association. Maybe Electronic Arts should add a feature to its basketball game where a huge fight breaks out and Ron Artest strangles somebody, in an attempt to satisfy hockey fans.

Re:This time in English.

[Anonymous Coward]

holy fuck shit, thank you. i was afraid i was going to be all night trying to figure out what "Maybe teh should put a feather" means.

Actually...

[Anonymous Coward]

...he had a drinking problem well before he and Madden joined up. I bet John Madden does have a horrific body odor, though.

Re:EA probably allowed players to go into the stan

[Shadow Wrought]

That's great. I remember the Phoenix Sun's gorilla doing that back when I followed basketball (over a decade ago;-). Since I now live in Portland, I have to check out the next Blazers/ Sonics game.

We don't need no stinkin licenses

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone remember Front Page Sports: Football? That game was great and it didn't have any licensing at all until it's later years. The 49ers were like the San Francisco Miners and their quarterback was Joe Dakota, not Joe Montana. ...I'm not making this up.

But it was easy enough to fix. Allow players to create custom team colors / graphics, and allow them to rename players and...voila, you have insta-NFL. Plus, players tend to make good rosters, uni's, and stadiums anyhow, so let us at it, Sega! Just give us a good editor for it all.

Re:We don't need no stinkin licenses

[FunkSoulBrother]

It is not so easy to fix on a non-networked console without permanent storage. And Front page was much better when you downloaded some proper rosters for it.

Or maybe EA is starting to smell

[Thangodin]

In my blog I I have an entry entitled The RIAA... in a Perfect World. The point is that when a company or organisation loses the moral high ground, and comes to occupy the moral low ground, everything they have is fair game. No one cares about stealing from a thief. And anyone who deals with a thief can expect no better. The articles that have appeared here and elsewhere about EA give it a very bad reputation.

PC games are easy to crack. Console games are easy enough too, with a mod chip. If you have a reputation for being a slime ball, no one will think twice about doing it. EA has had a lot of bad press lately, and believe me, as someone in the industry, you don't know the half of it. Anyone who makes a deal with EA right now is at risk. NBA just made a good business decision.

If EA wants to improve its chances with regard to licensings, they need to work on their reputation. Very hard.

The collective animosity of a group as large as the readership of slashdot is not a trivial matter.

On the other hand

[SuperKendall]

Let me get this straight - you are a game company, and you have the choice of selling the same game at $50 a year every year, only having to alter data and tweak graphics - or you can sell it only once in five years, letting fans do the data update themselves.

Being a big corperation, which option are you going to choose? Is it really going to be the choice where you make 5x less money over the long term?

Such a game seems like an ideal candidate for open source - where you can get the engine right, then have years of enjoyment from data updates that could be done by fans (well, fanatics - same diff). Perhaps the problem is that people in to open source are generally not as interested in sports as other things.

Re:On the other hand

[Newton Heath]

You will still have the opportunity to release new software as there are other enhancements to these games such as better AI, better human modelling etc. not just the player and team names.

Sure, you'll be able to import new rosters each year, but will you still be playing it when the latest version has better graphics, AI, replays etc.

I'd love to see numbers on these games sold and for instance, the percentage of people that buy every year compared to every 2-3 years. I for one buy when there are big enhancements to the quality of play based on AI and things like that.

OT: Whoa, news.com.com.com linked to /.

[WoTG]

Here I am, clicking on an external story at news.com, and low and behold, Slashdot's banner appears.

Is this a first? (Probably not) Anyway, watch what you type folks, Slashdot's almost mainstream!

Re:Way to go NBA. It's about time you didn't mess

[ramdac]

i meant owner. ;p

I know better than posting after having 6 beers.