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

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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

[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.

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

[Khaed]

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

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: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".

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: 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.