Slashdot Mirror
ESPN And Electronic Arts Sign 15-Year Deal
acxr is wasted writes "Electronic Arts has dealt another blow to rival Sega by signing a 15-year agreement with ESPN, giving the publisher exclusive video game rights to ESPN branded material. EA has recently faced pressure from popular ESPN-branded Sega titles released at discount prices, prompting their recent deal with the NFL, and failed bid for the NBA."
RPGs are the most important thing on any console anyway.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
sports fans usually have favorite players and teams, and love the fact that they are able to play as their own specific team/player. the espn games aren't simply branded as ESPN. they have the look and feel of ESPN telecasts as well as ESPN announcers and commentators. this just adds to the overall experience of the game which is supposed to be a recreation of the NBA or NHL or whatever. the fantasy league game would be utterly boring.
And there is EA's CEO admitting as much. This is horrible for the industry. EA has cranked out some crap this year, but the pressure from Sega has been keeping the Sports line programmers on their toes. Now with no competition, they're free to churn out crappy sports games, too. Sigh.
Oh well, this doesn't change my stance on EA. They haven't produced a decent game in over 5 years.
If you mean published a decent game, you're wrong. In fact, I'm playing Burnout 3 right now, and loving it.
If you mean developed a decent game.. well that's another story.
What is dangerous is that EA is definitely trying to consolidate the industry. They are doing sports games right now, but how long till they start moving in on your company of choice? They already made an initial attempt at Ubisoft, and they are buying licenses from Nintendo. Who is going to be next on the list?
If EA gets enough control over the gaming industry, even if you never play their games they'll still be able to have an impact. How about, for example, increasing the price on their games to $60 a pop? If EA has enough marketshare in the industry, you don't think every other publisher wouldn't follow suit?
That's just one example. EA is out to win big. Check out this article here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4180453.stm
EA's stated long term goal is to become the largest Entertainment Firm in the world. They want to take on the big names in the movie industry via games. They cite Disney as one of their targets to beat in future years.
EA isn't going to stop this, it is just going to keep getting worse until they are either:
A) Forced to stop B) The well dries up on them and they die from bloat.
Either way, this is bad for the consumer. This is most definitely *not* a healthy monolopy they are trying to form.
You are who you are, let no one tell you different. But, never close your mind to a new point of view.
It matters. The reason why EA did this is because last year ESPN came out with a pretty damned good football game and priced it at $19.99. EA priced theirs at $49.99, figuring that their brand recognition would allow them to charge double. They were wrong. EA had to drop their price, and evidently didn't like it because they got pissed enough to shell out for an exclusive license.
Result is they have a monopoly on NFL-licensed games for a long time. For sports fans - clearly not you, but there is some gamer/sports overlap - this sucks because we only have one choice, and it's guaranteed to be overpriced.
More than likely, no other significant NFL games will be made. Even creative games like NFL blitz etc typically need licenses to survive.
RPGs are the most important thing on any console anyway.
You are kidding right? Console sales of RPGs are almost negligible.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Don't blame EA for this. They are looking after their own interestes (as any company should do in a matter like this). Blame ESPN and the NFL for agreeing to these deals.
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
I thought that Madden 64 did a good job without NFL logos or player names. I'm pretty sure that most people buying an American fooball game know that Red, Back, and White team called "Atlanta" is the Atlanta Falcons. They also have a pretty good idea that the "7" guy lined up at quarterback is Michael Vick. You can keep the strategies, teams and players without the logos.
I agree. By itself this isn't a big deal. The ESPN name adds a little bit of credibility, and the ESPN announcer voices add a bit of professionalism to the image, but there is no real substance lost. However, the NFL's decision to sell exclusive rights is a much bigger deal, and when you combine that with ESPN's decision, its a pretty nasty one-two punch to Sega.
It might be the right decision for ESPN, but I really think it was a bad move by the NFL. Yes, it is money in the bank now for the NFL, but I think in the long term it works against them. A vibrant, competitive video game market for NFL licensed games is a HUGE promotion/marketing tool for the NFL. People playing the games get a lot more involved in the players and teams that people who just watch it on TV sometimes. I'll admit I never watched any football until I played Madden on the playstation and learned about the teams and the players and how the play calling influenced the game. I think that video games and fantasy leagues provide the kind of interaction that makes watching football exciting in a way that NO amount of regular advertising and promotion can do at any price. Plus, video games reach teens when they are impressionable and can make them NFL fans for life. Putting all their eggs in the EA basket might be a decision they come to regret.
I guess some of that applies to ESPN too. By taking the deal from EA they are cutting them selves off from Sega and other companies that might be willing to pay for the priviledge of promoting ESPN.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
The industry could radically change in fifteen years. EA could shoot itself in the foot in five years, becoming an also-ran. Fifteen years in the video game industry is like 45 years in the world of broadcasting.
It might be three years from now, or five, or 10 years from now, but ESPN will live to regret this deal.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
I don't think EA actually bought the ESPN license for the "X Games" this time. I think the real reason they bough the ESPN license is because they haven't secured exclusive deals the the NBA and NHL. So if you can't prevent your competition from making games, steal their license and name. Sega was releasing ESPN hockey, football, and basketball games that were easily 3 times better than EA game for half the price (at release.) EA knows their business model can't come up with a game to match their quality and matching the price would defeat the whole purpose of their business model (sacrifice quality and your employees welfare for highest possible profits.) Thus they steal Sega's license.
Well now that EA has essentially bought up everything that a competitor like Sega might want to use to brand their football games, I wonder if Madden 2006 will be the last game with the Madden branding. Madden himself is getting old and given the way EA puts out a new football game every year, perhaps less relevant. Soon many of the fans playing the game won't even know who Madden is, many probably don't now. So the Madden name itself may not be worth as much as it used to be. Another question I would have is just how much longer does the current deal to use Madden's name last? If that deal expires soon, then what many of us know as Madden may eventually be known as EA ESPN NFL Football 2007.
So maybe EA isn't an evil monopolist after all, they're just planning for the future!
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
No, the public should tell the NFL where to go. If people are stupid enoug to vote for tax subsidies for billionaires, then they are stupid enough to vote for tax breaks for billionaires without any compensation for themselves.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
EA would take a MASSIVE hit if customers began to EXPECT to only pay $19.99 for each year's incremental update to the prior year's sports games. It would not only hurt them in the games where Sega provides direct competition (NFL, NBA, NHL, etc), it would force them to shift the price of their unopposed games. Why would gamers pay $50 for Tiger Woods or NASCAR after paying just $20 for Madden?
Rest assured, somewhere in the upper levels of EA, the bosses are paying a premium for these deals because they're factoring in the extra cash they'll make once Sega is crushed. The NFL was the opening salvo, the failed NBA bid an attempted backbreaker (especially since Sega's NBA game has been generally better in recent years). The Arena Football League deal attempts to seal off Sega's escape route (Sega could have design an AFL game to keep their football engine primed for the expiration of the NFL deal). But this is the heavy artillery. While Sega had begun establishing itself as a credible creator of sports games, the added ESPN name gave immediate credibility to the series in the eyes of consumers. Sega is some company that made a console they used to play Sonic on, ESPN almost defines sports to many Americans. Taking ESPN out of their hands puts them back to trying to build the Sega Sports name, but without a licensed NFL game as their flagship. EA is out for blood.
Seen any BadMarketing lately?