Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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.
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"
"No one is more miserable than the person who wills everything and can do nothing." -Emperor Claudius 10 BC - AD 54
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...
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
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.
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.
Newsie, Moderator, www.tauniverse.com
I guess all of those NCAA basketball titles are just there to cover blank spaces in the stores.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
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.
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.
Blessed be he who reads this post, Cursed be he who tells my boss.
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.
I struggled for days and days and all I got was this lousy sig.
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.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
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.
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.