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."
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Of course it matters what name is on the front.
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
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
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.
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?