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.'"
The NBA probably just couldn't handle the violent level of EA's tough corporate culture.
NBA said "No, that's way too realistic."
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.
No worries about this happening with the NHL. Pro hockey does not exist OUTSIDE of videogames at this point!
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
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.
I dunno who it is
but it prolly is fhqwhgads.
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.
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
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Yeah, I know that. But a basketball game without the NBA teams and players will not sell well.
Le français vous intéresse?
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.
I guess high priced tickets, concessions and TV contracts just aren't enough to cover things like Kevin Garnets 11 year $305 million salary.
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."
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
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
I heard the deal was rejected because EA allows players to defend... mush too unrealistic in the NBA's eyes.
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
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.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
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?)
We recently had heard in the office over one of the Yellow Machine that's made by Anthology Solutions.
and Chewbacca dunks from downtown! It does not make sense!
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... :)
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?
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".
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:
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.Londovir
"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.
No, it's the sound of Zambonis exploding.
Might I also mention it was the only basketball game I ever owned? But it had the best halftime shows...
-Rob
Marriage doesn't have to suck!
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.
I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.
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.
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.
I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.
Doh! I'm always forgetting minor details... a checkbox here, order of magnitude there. At least my name's not Michael Bolton.
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.
"FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died."
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.
9 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.
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_6112
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.
// harborpirate
// Slashbots off the starboard bow!
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.
Londovir
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.
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.