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.
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
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."
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
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.
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.
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.
No, they just bring in Terry Tate: Office Linebacker.
"The pain train's comin'! WOO-WOO!"