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."
This sort of thing shouldn't be legal.
Seems like a match made in heaven to me. Nothing like some good ol' fashioned monopolising.
Release a smallpox infected Madden 2006 and call it manifest destiny?
Sounds like they are using Microsoft-esque tatics now. How long will it be before the DOJ gets on their case? Oh well, this doesn't change my stance on EA. They haven't produced a decent game in over 5 years.
Okay, I'm not a sports fan, but why can't they just make games that don't have actual player names or teams and just make a "fantasy league" and bypass any need for licencing? Is it really that much better of a game when it has the ESPN name on it?
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.
"We don't anticipating changing anything significantly from what we are currently doing," Larry Probst, chairman and chief executive of EA, said in an interview.
Not only is EA's CEO an evil monopolist, he's not very good at grammar either...
I personally feel that this will only help consumers and the industry. Now we won't have to worry about which title will be the better, because there will only be one. Also, the programmers at EA won't have to work extra long hours any more, because they won't have to make any changes to the games other than adding new seasonal data. Everyone's a winner!
On one hand the evil alliance is getting more powerful by the day. On the other hand, ESPN pretty much only covers boring invented-for-tv/radio sports. I guess since I don't play sports games or EA games this doesn't really bother me, although the day they try to buy out the Nethack dev team I'll be outside corporate headquarters with my torch and pitchfork.
If you look ahead 15 years, this deal is going to expire. This deal is going to last 5475 days, and we all know that is a long time. This could be a very good deal for EA, but if it turns out to be a bad move, then it's not going to be good for EA.
FTA: "'We don't anticipating changing anything significantly from what we are currently doing'... they will potentially include ESPN data, graphics and sportscasters" [Emphasis mine]
Now cmon, if you plan to contract one of the largest names in sports news, then at least integrate it into the game. The only reason EA is buying the ESPN license apparently to use "ESPN properties as potential video games, including the "X Games" extreme athletics competitions, poker and even bass fishing."
Wow, cause I want to spend 50 dollars on ESPN World Poker Tour $year.
Despite what many have said, this may not be such a bad thing.
I mean now with Blitz free to do what they want, and a niche market opening up- I'm excited about sports games for once!
It's really too bad there will likely be no 30$ ESPN Football or hockey again, but for each on of those, there will be an outlaw golf, or baseball stars.
These unlicensed games have been missing from 'popular' libraries for years. I see this as only opening up a market for the smaller, savvy developer/publisher.
---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
I was for this deal before I was against it /sorry
replacing it with NEW Folger's Crystals! (lets see if they notice the difference)
...
Just don't buy EA sports games? Does a game [say football or hockey] strictly need real "pro teams" to make it fun?
Of course like windows most consumers are serfs that buy whatever commercials tell them to so they will buy into EA games...
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
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.
EA announces purchase of Skynet.
Challenge Everything (Exept our corporate empire.)
"It is the mark of an educated man to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
For the majority of players, yes.
A lot of sports fans like sports games, because they already know the strategies, the teams, and the players. Being able to use real team names, logos, and data is a HUGE sales boost.
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 $49.99, figuring that their brand recognition would allow them to charge double. They were wrong. EA had to drop their price, and evidently didn't like it because they got pissed enough to shell out for an exclusive license.
Result is they have a monopoly on NFL-licensed games for a long time. For sports fans - clearly not you, but there is some gamer/sports overlap - this sucks because we only have one choice, and it's guaranteed to be overpriced.
More than likely, no other significant NFL games will be made. Even creative games like NFL blitz etc typically need licenses to survive.
RPGs are the most important thing on any console anyway.
You are kidding right? Console sales of RPGs are almost negligible.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Don't blame EA for this. They are looking after their own interestes (as any company should do in a matter like this). Blame ESPN and the NFL for agreeing to these deals.
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
Not only that, but The Walt Disney Company owns ESPN. If you'll remember, Disney was behind the copyright term extension acts. This makes an Unholy Trinity of Disney, EA, and Microsoft (whose MSN network hosts ESPN's web site).
I thought that Madden 64 did a good job without NFL logos or player names. I'm pretty sure that most people buying an American fooball game know that Red, Back, and White team called "Atlanta" is the Atlanta Falcons. They also have a pretty good idea that the "7" guy lined up at quarterback is Michael Vick. You can keep the strategies, teams and players without the logos.
What is the "Golden Rule" you might ask? "He who owns the gold makes the rules."
Randy Moss mooned EA and went home in the middle of the third quarter.
And his stupid ass team choked and lost me 20 bucks.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
I agree, at the end of the day EA only proposed these deals, ESPN and EA were the ones who signed on to them, and as always money talk$.
Peep that
The same way Microsoft simply proposes to computer vendors that they not sell anything else... or else...?
I cant even imagine what Video Games will be like in 15 years.
15 years ago... 1990... I remember playing a Football Arcade game. Top down view of little sprites running about. 10 Yard Fight!
I think it's time for sega to seriously consider luring Madden away from EA with gobbs of cash. Who wouldn't want to play Madden Football 2k6?
The ______ Agenda
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
If I were sega, I would design a football game that lets users plug in team data. Make everything like the NFL except for uniforms, logos, and names. Then have some anonymous person on the internet post a mod pack that exactly replicates the protected NFL data. Make it very easy for consumers to plug in this data pack.
"brxref
On the other hand, when I was a teenager there was a Sega Genesis game by the name of _Mutant League Football_
That game was made by Electronic Arts back when EA didn't suck. Many Slashdot readers would agree that EA jumped the shark when it stopped using the box-ball-cone logo and started putting the EA Sports logo on non-sport games. Sorry, but you're probably not going to get a sequel, as EA would rather sell more Madden games so as not to have to maintain an extra SKU using the Madden engine.
Does a game need real teams? No, not necessarily. But there is a certain something to playing your favorite teams, as your favorite player. A game can be successful without a license, but it won't be the same.
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.
Except trademark law has changed in the four decades (of Internet time) since Madden 64 came out; with the expansion of the scope of trade dress, it's possible to trademark a color scheme now. NFL and the Atlanta Falcons probably have Red+Black+White+Atlanta, GA, trademarked.
Because he doesn't like it. So it should be illegal. He probably does like downloading the games for free via suprnova, so that should be legal, right?
Also, because he thinks that TV channels like ESPN are government agencies, and aren't free to licsense whoever the hell they want to use their image.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
So who runs EA? (Wasn't it started by Trip Hawkins?) Currently it seems to be Larry Probst... can we get a Larry Probst Borg icon here for EA stories?
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
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
Back when I was a good ol' Nintendo player... I never really liked sports games. They were all the same...you had over twenty baseball games alone to choose from for the NES, they all got stale rather quickly...let's see here, there was "Baseball", "RBI Baseball", "RBI Baseball II", "Bases Loaded", "Bases Loaded II", "Bases Loaded III", "Bases Loaded IV"...
Then I found a friend who rented Baseball Simulator 1000. Baseball was unreal to the point where it was fun. Bunt on a "tornado pitch" that goes over 200 mph and you could get a home run! Choose to hit a "missle ball" and whoever was dumb enough to get in the way of the ball was carried all the way to the outfield fence, smacked against the wall, and knocked out cold for two seconds of play. The game added creativity to an otherwise stale game.
The other fun baseball-spinoff was Base Wars. Unless it was a force-out, you got to battle your opponent to determine if the base runner was out or safe (all the players were robots). When you won games, you got extra money to purchase for faster movement on the field, armor, or weapons that you could really use to waste your opponent with.
But I find sports games to be a lot like first-person shooters. Every year, you get about 50 new titles. On average, 49.5 of them are recycled from previous titles; the gameplay is always the same, just with different "maps" (a.k.a. "stadiums" in the sports genre) and different players to play with.
EA has been making crap lately. The fact that ESPN 2k4 and 5 has been kicking Madden's ass for the past 2 years is not news,the same goes for their hockey and basketball lines. ESPN continued to tweak gameplay and graphics to the point that it looks and feels like a real game--not to forget that videogame magazines,websites and tv shows have noticed and gave more favorable reviews to ESPN despite pressure from the mega publisher. So I may not buy console football for another 5 years f---it. I doubt the doj will get involved unless the smaller companies make a big deal of it.
Now Sega can go back to making real games.
In this case, EA's interests conflict with gamers' (we want choice). So yes, it is well and good that we f'ing blame them.
Let's get drunk and delete production data!
You know, Sega could just release a decent game with a fantasy league, no sweat. With the kicker that you could create your *own* fantasy league!
;-)
There would immediately be hundreds of websites with skins and mods for the real league.
But than most of the revenue stram for those kinds of games comes from yearly updates, I guess.
(Fools buy it every year. Happy flaming about that
(Mmmh, they could do an online league. Every player builds his own team and they pay for access to the servers.....)
Seems like to me the gaming industry is just a few years behind the monopoly-run software/applications industry. Here's an analogy for you all :)
Microsoft is to Computer Applications as ______ is to Electronic Entertainment.
EA just seems to be climbing the ladder.
Maybe Sega could try Arena Football?
Oh wait, EA signed them to a contract, too, last week...
One man's Funny is another man's Offtopic.
"... but it won't be the same."
Yeah they'll be original... oops...
Lots of video games aren't based in reality. That's usually a good thing since they're a diversion. Sure "real teams" is a nice touch but I personally wouldn't care.
To me it's about the reflexes and/or strategy.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
How can anyone be so stupid as to sign a 15 year deal in an industry as changing as end user software. And in games nontheless, and industry that is currently changing at an insane pase.
Here's my prediction. EA is going to continue releasing halfassed titles with the ESPN brand that are nothing more then minor incremental upgrades of previous releases. They're going to pull in some money to start with, but as people start to realize that there are other much better titles out there sales are going to drop.
Inevitibly they will drop so far that the many of the titles are going to be scrapped and fewer and fewer titles are going to be released with the ESPN brand bringing in less and less money for ESPN.
At this point we're probably somewhere 4-8 years down the road.
EA (or EA sports) will either manage to stay valuble on their other types of games, or they will start dropping on the stockmarket.
If they manage to stay valuble the ESPN brand will be sub-leased to other companies making the profit be split up between three companies, as well as making ESPN loose control of their own brand.
If they drop too far in value the exclusive right will eventually be picked up by some other major games company (Microsoft?) and things will restart with them.
I'm guessing we're now somewhere 8-13 years down the road.
What might possibly break this bad cycle is if the exclusive right deal drops so much in value that ESPN can buy it back and do something sensible with their brand in the games industry instead.
All in all this is a great shortterm deal for EA and I send my congratulations to their negotiators (who I'm sure is walking home with a big stack of greens). ESPN is the big looser here as they'll loose out on the getting-very-big computer games market. The general public will loose out on the ability to play great titles with their favourite teams, but they'll still be able to play great games.
Of course all of this is quite obvious. I just wanted to put it down in a slashdot post so that I 10 years from now can point back and say 'I told you so'.
Failing to learn from history dooms you to repeat it.
EA's going to buy Sega anyways. They're goin one company at a time, and sometime around 2010 they'll buy microsoft and then they'll stop - not coz they'd run outa money but coz they'd own the entire software industry by then.
"At least in the short term..." the article says. Hm... Maybe that plan on dumping Madden??
I guess EA really is planning ahead. ;-)
ESPN locked up until the year 2020
I swear to god I am never buying another EA game. These guys are ruining the face of the video game developement industry. There are a few proud companies out there though, id, Oddworld inhabitants, Valve (I don't like them or how they work, but they are still better than EA), and Atari. I really want to see more small game dev. companies poping up. I am sorta really at a loss when I hear people say "Need for speed underground 2 is so awesome!", if EA can pump out a game with so many ads and then start putting all of the POP culture greats into a game .... gah I can't take it.
as previously stated in another post of mine "Fuck off EA".
Eat sleep die
Um, aren't the rules for most sports games pretty much set in stone anyhow? You can do things like individualizing the stats of players and programming in preset plays, but it's still going to be football, or baseball, or whatever. It's like playing checkers with pure-diamond figurines of various political figures, hand-carved painstakingly by the rare diamond-billed antarctic penguin. It may get flashier, but it's still checkers.
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
Nintendo's "Blades of Steel". Like pong with hockey players. So very awesome.
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
Our Overlords are just making sure we know:
EA==M$
M$==The Devil
Meet the new Microsoft of Entertainment.
I am pretty sure such a huge monopoly won't do gamers and the products any good.
<Bitter Canadian Hockey Fan Rant>
Any word yet as to whether or not Bettman has sold out or is looking to sell out the NHL yet to these asshats at EA? It's only a matter of time I suppose; the commish fscks over everything else with his league.
<Bitter Canadian Hockey Fan Rant>
But Maaa! Everyone else has a
Last time I checked, Stuart Scott focuses primarily on basketball. I would say your better bet is Chris Berman Football 2011, although he'll be quite old by that time as well. Maybe Mike Golich Football? Anyone who listens to ESPN Radio from 6-10AM every weekday knows what I'm talking about.
Note to self: Stop putting jokes in my insightful comments so I can get something other than +1 Funny!
mod me down for redundancy, but this is friggin horrible.
Get Virtual.
Yes, we want choice... but why should they try and help us out? They exist for one reason. To make money. Companies that try and exist for any other reason collapse before we know their names. I'm a huge fan of Sega's sports games, and think that they're better. That being said, I don't blame EA for their decision... to quote Ray Kroc (Founder of McDonalds) on how he dealt with competitors -
If they were drowning to death, I would put a hose in their mouth.
Is it a good thing? No. Is their a better way right now? No. Hate them all you want... but as far as business goes, they made a very profitable decision, and I doubt they care what you think.
WANNAWIKI Wannawiki WannaWiki WANNAWIKI!
You're just jealous.
...
Besides playing with "Real players (tm)" just celebrates them. I find nothing to celebrate in whiny, often questionable and rarely honourable people that play a game for a couple of years for many millions.
Oh it's tough work. No doubt about it. But they also get to "play for a dozen years" then retire at 30 with millions in their pockets. Pay the players say 60 to 80 grand a year plus travel expenses [e.g. hotels, food] and then we can say "whoa, they work hard for the money".
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
No argument there. Directors have become mere rubber stamping tools for management teams. Why? Because the boards are all composed of O-level guys from other public companies, all of whom seem to observe a tacit agreement not to screw with each other's executive decisions.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Can a company still release a game featuring players with roughly identical attributes, and allow you to rename them? How about teams?
Could a company create an easy way to create/swap rosters online, so the fans could make whatever they want and post it online for you to download?
That's what I'd do, if I were smart.
1) Your analysis is based on bad assumptions so your result is way off. 2) You're a sick bastard for fucking a horse.
"...marketing has such a pull on the public..."
This is especially true of the sports fan market. This is why Nike and Gatorade deals are big bucks. In sports, image is an extremely close second to athletic ability.
For an example, SportsCenter is heralded *every night* by sports fans like it is the second coming of Christ. I don't care how much in-depth coverage another network could do, it won't be SportsCenter, and fans are, by definition, loyal.
I never realized what EA has become until these last few 'deals'. This is amazing and I can't see how this will end will for the consumer.
-- I have fans? Wow.
I thought the NBA 2K series was better than the NBA Live games. Even the venerable Madden football games had a VERY SLIGHT edge over the NFL 2K games. I hope Sega can hold on...
This is actually good news. I think it's the beginning of the end for EA.
First, my bet is that Sony, MS, and Nintendo are as worried as anyone about EA's rise to power. The could quite nearly already ruin a console (cf. Dreamcast). But now, if a console maker isn't doling out favors and money to EA, they will find themselves in a very difficult position. I wonder if we won't begin to see some interesting powerplays behind the scenes, with MS/Sony/Nintendo running some subvert rescue operations to somehow curb EA from gobling all the power dots on the board.
The other positives in this is that we will probably start to see all the things that come with being in a near-monopoly level of control. Lawsuits against EA will inevitably ensue.
Finally, I don't care what EA says - a vaccum of competition makes teams lazy. What does Tiberon, the studio behind Madden, have to worry about if they have a few bad features in the game? Why bother paying for focus groups, or worrying about review scores or message board feedback, if your game is the only NFL game on the market for the next X years? Mark my words: the progression we've seen in the quality of EA's sports titles will begin to diminish.
You don't use an ICBM to kill an ant hill. EA was obviously worried about Sega. They wouldn't have gone to all this trouble for the hell of it. You don't see them suddenly making exclusive Curling League contracts. They were starting to hurt after last year's $20 high quality sports titles.
If EA can bleed, they can be killed.
There is nothing wrong with a fantasy league other then that people want to use the real thing. Now people are terrified that EA has a monopoly on that name that everyone wants so badly. To this I say, who gives a fuck? Get a grip. This isn't an OS by stretch of the imagination where at least crying monopoly makes sense. This is a sport. A piece of recreation. EA and ESPN hold absolutely no monopoly over the things I can do to recreate. Don't like the way NFL or ESPN is doing business, DON'T WATCH. People have the power to make every stupid corporation under the sun vanish over night, they just are too lazy to do it.
A good friend of mine is a sociologist. She will preach endlessly about how evil Wal-Mart and globalization is - then go to Wal-Mart to buy stuff instead of a mom and pop shop because they offer the largest selection at the lowest price. For fuck's sake. You don't need government action to take these companies down, just a week or two of not giving them your money.
ESPN, the NFL, and EA are perfect examples of this. So ESPN enters into an agreement with EA that any right thinking person should immediately recognize as stifling innovation in sports games. The real question is not when EA is going to get nailed for being a monopoly, but when are YOU going to stop giving ESPN and EA your money. This is football for fuck's sake. Grow a pair of balls, suck it up, and don't watch the shit if you think their practices stink. This is a luxury we are talking about it. It is something that doesn't require loss of life or limb to boycott.
People are whiny and obnoxious these days. I bet easily 95% of the people here that complain about this move on Slashdot are going to bitch up a three page essay on why EA is evil, then fork over a couple of twenties for their NFL 2005. Bah. The whiney masses are so gutless and spineless they deserve to have corporations like EA and ESPN walk all over them.
We all know EA hasn't shown any progression in the Madden games since 2002.
Maybe you do, but don't speak for the rest of us -- the public at large. A quick look at www.metacritic.com yields the following scores (PS2 versions):
2001 - 91
2002 - 94
2003 - 95
2004 - 94
2005 - 91
It helps to do your research before you make sweeping incorrect claims. Score went up, 2003 to 2004.
But what's actually much more impressive is that all the scores are above 90, which is very rare (just check metacritic and look).
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?
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.
Hiow do you know that the amount that "Sega and other companies" would be willing to pay is larger than that of what EA *has* offered to pay?
1) Do you know how much EA paid? No.
2) Do you have financial models taking into account a number of factors to try to predict what the most beneficial outcome is for ESPN? I highly doubt it.
So do not make assumptions otherwise.
In 15 years, ESPN could have had 40% or more of the market just by developing their own game (or pushing NFL 2k5 and beyond).
ESPN doesn't develop games. They hire people (Sega, Konami, etc.) who hire people (Kush Games, Visual Concepts, etc.) to develop games. The only thing that is different now is they've signed a longer than usual with someone they've hired to hire. Someone with a fantastic track record at doing such, to boot.
Besides, I kinda have more faith in the judgement abilities of the heads of ESPN's licensing division than "an anonymous coward on slashdot".
Don't get me wrong, I agree EA is an evil company
And you think that why??
Sega has only one viable option - what they should do at this point is release a basketball and football game again next year... only with the names and uniforms ever so slightly changed. The Falcons become the Fulcrums (or something much less stupid anyway but similar in nature). The players look kind of similar to real players, but perhaps have clown noses. The stadiums are variations on the real thing.
:-)
Then, since they no longer have to pay for licensing fees and are covered under fair use of similar liknesses by the parody clause, they release the game at $9.99. That's right, scorched earth policy. I think a lot of people will be happy to play a good football game with clown noses rather than pay $40 extra for nothing special, and it would really stick it to EA.
Sega owes it to the population of the Earth to spend every second now tormenting EA the company to an early grave.
And THAT is capitalism at its finest.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
EA has cranked out some crap this year
Has it? Which?
Let's see, taking a look at EA's sports games 2004/2005, we see...hmm...critically acclaimed pretty much across the board. Lots of "green" scoring there...
How do EA's interests conflict with gamers'?
- Gamers want good games.
- EA wants to make good games because thats what gamers want and then EA will make money. If EA succeeds, people buy their games, and everyone's happy. If EA fails, people don't buy their games and EAs unhappy and out of business, but gamers will turn elsewhere to whoever succeeded in place of EA.
Why "blame" anyone??
ESPN and NFL made deals which clearly they benefit from, or they wouldn't have made them...
If we consider a game with an average score of over 85% to be "critically acclaimed", we see Madden still falls there on the PS2. However, Madden's score has been dropping, slowly but surely since Madden 2003. Madden 2003 got a 91.3% average, 2004 got a 90.8%, and Madden 2005 has a 90.0%.
NBA Live doesn't make it above 81% average this year, so it isn't what we'll call "critically acclaimed" for this unscientific survey.
MLB 2005 also doesn't make it with only a 79.9%
NHL 2005 saw a drastic drop year over year in averages. NHL 2004 had an 84.4%, which would have almost made it, but this year's NHL 2005 has only a 77.1%.
Now, let's look at Sega's lineup for this year.
ESPN NFL 2K5 scores an 89%. A mere 1% lower than Madden, and almost 2.5% higher than last year's, which was also higher than 2K3's score. Sega's game goes up in review scores, EA's goes down. Funny that EA got this license from the NFL, eh?
ESPN NBA 2K5 gets a 84.8%, not making it "critically acclaimed" for our survey, but close, and rated higher, overall, than EA's NBA game.
ESPN NHL 2K5 gets a 87.8%. That makes it to our list, and is 10.7% higher in the ratings than EA's arcadey crap NHL game (as it should be, because EA's is arcadey crap).
There is no Major League Baseball released for ESPN this year to compare. Or, at least no reviews of ESPN Major League Baseball 2K5.
So, take Metacritic's "green" rating and toss it. Go to GameRankings and see a site dedicated to just video game reviews, and it will give you a much better idea of what reviewers thought of any game out there. And these were scores just for the PS2 versions, not the Xbox versions.
Catwoman comes to mind. There have been others recently, but I don't have the wherewithall to look 'em up right now. My point was that, without the pressure exherted by the other sports franchises, Sega/ESPN in particular, how long before EA lets their sports games deteriorate to the craptacular level of the drivel that they've started pouring out lately?
They aren't a goddamn gaming only meta-study/review average site! They do books and DVDs and all sorts of other shit. Look at GameRankings for averages for games based on just GAMING SITES.
And, in there, you will see that EA's Madden has gone down since 2003, not up. Not a huge amount, but it is falling in scores.
for the simple fact that, if you want to play Final Fantasy, you have to buy a PS/2. I can get the latest sports game for any console, because EA ports the same damn to all of them (and will scale down their specs to the lowest common denominator).
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
No, I do blame EA. Since Madden outpaced Joe Montana Football on the Genesis, this battle was waged on the electronic field, not through exclusivity clauses.
... well, anything. They're irrelevant. The point is that there's a huge market in actual Earth sports rather than returning to the 2600 era of The Generic Platonic Concept of Football Made Playable Electronically!, EA knows it, and they don't plan on winning it through making a better game.
... but we all know where EA stands on that issue!)
Unlike some, I'm not going to say they haven't made a good game in the past 4 years- Tiger Woods 2002 was loaded with innovation beneath its EA Sports trendiness- and that's ignoring SSX or the original Def Jam. But what happened to the EA that blew Sega's Mario Lemieux Hockey off the ice with the premiere of NHL Hockey? Back then it was the other companies (except for Tecmo's original efforts) that emphasized style over substance- remember Nintendo's Mode-7 NFL Football?
Now EA's more concerned about movie endorsements and selling a $59 "collector's pack" with linebackers that start wheezing if you shift them. Sega jumps back on the field for a post-Dreamcast showdown and EA flees to their contracts.
When Namco's Tekken 4 was running on inertia from Tag and otherwise sucking quite well, Sega released VF 4 Evo, tuned to the hilt, at $19. Namco learned, put some effort into 5, and will be bundling a polished version of Tekken 1 with the PS2 version. If EA wanted to release a fighting game they'd sign a 20 year exclusive contract on breasts and throw their day care kids into crunch time.
Neither ESPN nor the NFL care. Horrid games have been released under both licenses. And despite what others are saying, this isn't going to cause an influx of originality with more Mutant Leage Footballs or Outlaw Golfs. The first was made *by* EA in addition to their Madden games; the latter is hardly a competitor to
When people say they don't like corporations, This Is Why.
(well, and long hours/low pay
that EA have no intentions of innovating their way back into the publics hearts. It's probably fair to say that these 15 games will be so slightly incremental that you'll be hard pushed to tell the difference between one release and another from five years later.
Dammit used the 989 crap MLB instead of EA's MVP scores. MVP 2004 would make it above 85% with an 88.2%, but no MVP 2005 released yet.
Catwoman, well, yeah....lol...but the very movie was a bad idea from the start...heh.
1) As I've said before:
;)
"You're whining about one game reviews site over another??? THAT'S your major complaint? If so you COMPLETELY missed the point that was attempted to make. This site, that site, screw it, any site with 20+ reviews from professional reviewers, I don't give a damn, because it's completely and utterly beside the point."
2) Keeping a consistently high average year after year IS a sign of some progress anyway, as consumers would not buy something that was exactly like the previous years version without some substantial changes. The fact that Madden (just as an example) maintains consistently high ratings year after year is indicative of them (Tiburon and EA) doing a good job at adding new interesting features and content year after year.
But none of that as the point anyway...but then again, my point of "at least vaguely check your facts before making broad sweeping statments" is probably fruitless on Slashdot....
Fast forward to now, and ESPN built up its name thanks to Sega, gained marketshare and mindshare exponentially (ESPN 2K5 sales were almost on parity with Madden, albiet with the lower price and the game had gained cachet perhaps solely because of Sega's excellent development efforts), and then took a page from EA and crowbarred Sega in the solar plexus.
I know the question is itself fallacious, because at some level these were both business decisions, but: Why do successful companies who built their brands on Sega's success hate Sega? I mean, you'd think there'd be some goodwill and comradery between the Sega and ESPN execs that would at least make them think twice at 15-year-exclusive-deal time with the biggest competitor.
The biggest football league, the UEFA Champions League, witnessed by billions around the globe, is the single most important event in the world of football each year. SEGA can easily grab that licence, and release a football game based on that. If coupled with Virtua Striker graphics, it could not be anything else than a winner.
And along with the UEFA CL, goes the FIFA World Cup.
This is just one more reason that I am glad I do not play any kind of sports game.
It's widely known they're planning to raise the costs of videogames on the next systems. This is EA getting the Heavens aligned to charge Micro$oft-level money. I think the major players, Sony, Micro$, NFL, EA have it in their interests to have fewer games and charge more for the really popular ones. I think Sega IS toast. They challenged the champion, but couldn't knock him out. Now he's getting revenge.
You're clearly not a dedicated sports fan. You may claim to be, but you're not. Your comments verify this.
Actually PLAYING as your team is entertaining in a way that more "original" (how original can a 100 year old sport be?) games can't capture.
"Sure "real teams" is a nice touch but I personally wouldn't care."
"To me it's about the reflexes and/or strategy"
Ok, might as well get this over with. You're not the norm. What the game is about to you is meaningless, because the vast majority of gamers who play sports titles don't have your opinion, but instead want the extra realism. They want a game that is good to play, but ALSO has the license. Anything less is just Dr. Chek.
They want whatever the commercial tells them they want. As I recall correctly they did sell pong machines in the 70s/80s.
That's why they're serfs. Let's see 20$ realistic football game with made up team names or the EA NFL 2k5 ultra-gourmet-quality-licensed 40$ title...
Well EA has three times as many commercials. Therefore I want the EA game. Even though it costs twice as much and has the SAME GAME PLAY.
Look at excitbike/atv/waverace games. They introduce some brand names here and there but largely the make up the tracks, people, etc.
Do people care? Answer: not yet.
Until they license an ATV leagues competitors likeness to EA then "ATV 2k6 super-road" comes out.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
This type of exclusive deal feels far too anti-competitive to be right... The fact that EA publishes many other games makes me nervous too. What if they start doing these types of deals outside of the sports gaming industry?
It started back in Team Fortress Classic
Yes, most of those are funny. But after playing ESPN NFL 2K5 as the Jets, I am really sick of hearing "Curtis 'My Favorite' Martin." I heard it several times a game, as he was always on the highlight reels and was often the player of the game.
Note to self: Stop putting jokes in my insightful comments so I can get something other than +1 Funny!
You're missing my point entirely. I believe that EA is paying ESPN more for an exclusive license than ESPN would have received from EA+SEGA+other parties for non-exclusive licensing. I'm not contesting that the EA deal makes sense for ESPN on a balance sheet or a revenue model.
My issue is that the promotional value of video games isn't properly valued on a balance sheet. Corporations spend millions of dollars on advertising to try and improve their image and it isn't as effective as video games. No advertising reaches that critical 12-25 demographic the way that video games do. To put this completely into the hands of EA, who isn't even going to put the ESPN name on the front of the game box is a mistake in my opinion.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
If you don't watch a lot of football, you're just not going to get the parent post's joke. Ever. If you do, BitwiseX, that was sublime. Kudos.
-Ryan C.
Is there any type of an exclusivity clause in the contract between ESPN and EA? If so, that leaves Sega wide open to partner up with another sports network that is in a position similar to their own (David to EA's Goliath)...Fox Sports Net.
Think about it, Fox Sports Net typically has better coverage with market-specific programming, which allows them to create a better allegience with viewers who like to actually watch sports rather than sports recap shows (as I can invariably turn on ESPN and catch Sportscenter). Sure, they're lacking the NFL license, but they can make a 'generic' football game and still have a commentary team with stylized and recognizable graphics. And it would be something that is applicable across any and all of their sports games...my hope is that they partner with FSN and get in on the FIFA action and produce a soccer game that I actually enjoy playing (EA I refuse to play anymore and Winning Eleven # is too sterile for my tastes).
This is potentially bad for a lot of companies, but Sega doesn't have to be one of them. Of course, this is all moot if there isn't exclusivity between ESPN and EA (which I sincerely doubt).
"How like you to drag your keyboard to a gun fight." - Aaron Bedard (BANE)
Just out of curiosity, if the world were to follow your visionary plan, who would get to take home the extra money? There are a handful of sports organisations with quite astonishing payrolls and they still manage to make a profit. Player salaries are mostly what they are because the market values them like that. If you want to admire athletes who can't live from what they earn, even though they play in the majors, then you might want to check out Major League Lacrosse.
Hank! White!
I didn't say I don't play RPGs - just not on the PS2. I play them on PC all the time - which seems, to me, to be a far superior medium for RPGs.
Since you seem to be better versed, how do PS2 RPGs compare to their PC cousins?
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
IIRC the publishers of a superhero game got sued by marvel/dc because users were able to use the costume designer to create heroes that looked similar to their trademarked comic book characters.