Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

EA Signs College Football License Deal

Posted by Zonk on from the stuck-a-feather-in-their-cap dept.

Yet another license falls into the hands of the EA sports game crafters. The Business Wire is reporting that EA Games has signed a six year agreement with the Collegiate Licensing Company. This allows EA the exclusive use of teams, stadiums, etc, etc. From the article: "Our NCAA football franchise is a key element in our EA SPORTS brand lineup and we are pleased to have secured the NCAA license...There is an unrivaled loyalty our fans have for the game, and this agreement with CLC allows EA to continue to deliver to fans the best, most innovative college football experience now and for years to come."

18 of 72 comments (clear)

  1. Great... more Madden action! by duffbeer703 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now for college sports! woot!

    Who buys this crap anyway?

    --
    Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
    1. Re:Great... more Madden action! by servognome · · Score: 3, Insightful

      this is precisely one of the things that I worry about, that they'll indeed just repackage a pro game with some different logos, and that just wouldn't be the same.
      It's not like college football and pro football are significantly different. The core engine should be the same, it's the same sport. The only slight tweaks you can really do are off the field, with the primary difference being recruiting vs contract negotiations. Everything else you can do would just be there to add "flavor." Making sure players go to class isn't a compelling feature, and the NCAA probably doesn't want the game to deal with arrests, illegal booster contributions, etc.

      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    2. Re:Great... more Madden action! by KingJoshi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes and no. You have to make sure the game plays well with the differences of college and pro. The Option is still run by various teams in college. There are more teams and more variety of offenses. Speed in the pro game negates the option and has other influences in the game. The designers, developers and testers must make sure that the changes in rules, players, advantage to home team, atmosphere are adequately incaptured in the game. Maybe no significant difference, but A LOT of minor differences (both on and off the field).

      --
      In times like these, it is helpful to remember that there have always been times like these. - Paul Harvey
  2. Re:Not Really News Anymore... by ZephyrXero · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So that's it now huh? EA owns the rights to all the football teams that matter. Wow... I don't play football games, but I really feel for all the poor bastards doomed to play a rehash of Madden 2000 for the next 5 years. Way to innovate EA...

    Note to self: Continue boycotting all EA products

    --
    "A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
  3. the jargon of evil. by muel · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "...this agreement with CLC allows EA to continue to deliver to fans the best, most innovative college football experience now and for years to come."

    Why the outright lie, EA? The people who read these press releases aren't the ones who'll fall for that dummy logic. We already know that these agreements only "allow" EA to monopolize the authenticity of the respective sports involved.

    What's interesting about this, though, is that NCAA games have always had restrictions - player names have been forbidden for years, and yet gamers haven't balked and been upset. This'll cripple competitors' use of official songs, logos, team names and mascots, but this is the one category of sports game "monopolies" that might actually work out for competitors.

    Not to mention, this all will wind up creating backdoor, Internet-assisted "player editing" capabilities in competitors' games. PS2 and XBox Internet users will certainly be able to sneakily insert all the "official" information into the games. At least, I hope.

    1. Re:the jargon of evil. by bogie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Not to mention, this all will wind up creating backdoor, Internet-assisted "player editing" capabilities in competitors' games. PS2 and XBox Internet users will certainly be able to sneakily insert all the "official" information into the games. At least, I hope."

      I think its more likely that they'll just stop making NCAA football games. I know unofficailly its been done in the past but considering how much it costs to develop and market a game these days I can just see where eventually you have one nfl game, one ncaa game etc by the end of this deal. I mean Christ a six year exclusive contract? How is that possibly good in any way? Do they have any idea how much power they are putting in EA's hands? With these deals alone they could make or break ANY console. What's that Microsoft? You don't want to do X,Y, and Z and pay us $50 million in kickbacks? Well then, no football for your console for the next 5 years!

      This is so wrong.

      --
      If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
    2. Re:the jargon of evil. by cgenman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Most NCAA games allows you to edit your player names and stats for this very reason. It lets you recreate your home team (or the whole bloody league) unencumbered by the restriction against "students" having conflicts of interest.

      While I would like to see a swing towards more fantasy-based and original takes on sports, like Cyberball, I'm not holding my breath. It's very difficulty to sell fantasy sports games to publishers, because even if an accurate sports game is junk it will still sell ok, but the next Cyberball may sell as well as, well, Cyberball. Certainly some pseudo super games have had success more recently than that, like NFL blitz and NBA Jams, but both had official licenses. But the more creative you are, the less likely you are to get the broad market of people who like a sport and who want to play a game that is exactly like that sport.

      I agree, though, that exclusivity contracts are likely to run your sport into the ground. Madden has stayed good over the years because of the constant competition. If that were over, the series would stagnate and fail like it almost did at the beginning of the PS1 era. Exclusivity just reduces the value of the property.

      I don't know that is enough to make or brake any console, but it certainly doesn't help MS or Nintendo or Sony's position.

      --
      The ______ Agenda
  4. OK Let's cover it all right here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Pick your applicable Slashdot response here:

    1. EA is evil
    2. This is a monopoly, aren't monopolies illegal?
    3. OMG isn't someone going to do something about this?
    3a. Let's boycott EA!
    4. Blah blah blah, just don't buy the game, you have this right as a consumer, blah blah.
    5. Random Nostalgia Comment about playing some football game with mutants, and how there still a possibility for innovation (hint, not very likely at all).
    6. Comment about all Madden games after '92 sucking ass.

    Am I missing anything?

    1. Re:OK Let's cover it all right here by Ayaress · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And to get the standard replies out of the way:

      1. Yep.
      2. Not really. You don't need the players' or teams' names to make a football game. I remember some of the old ones calling their teams just "Denver" and "Chicago," with modified logos and player names spelled differently than the real ones. Even a randomly generated roster would work - and could work BETTER, for replay value. Even then, can one type of game make a monopoly? Saying that would lead us to say that Sega has a monopoly on games like Sonic, or that Bioware has a monopoly on Star Wars RPGs. Even taking into account all the other games that EA makes, they're still not a monopoly. Big, yes. Biggest, certainly. But they're still not even a majority of the video game industry, let alone a monopoly.
      3. For the same reason nobody's done anything about Microsoft. When the gorrilla wants the best seat in the monkey house, the capuchins aren't going to pursuade him to move.
      3a. Great and fine, but you'll never get enough people behind it. Try, though, even an unheard and unnoticed protest is a protest just the same.
      4. As a consumer, you also have the right to influence other consumers. By telling them WHY EA is a bad company, you hope to also get them to excercise their rights as consumers.
      5. And if somebody made a football game with mutants now, it wouldn't be innovation. NFL Blitz was innovation, but now if another game goes that route, it won't be innovative either. Where does it go from here? Invent a new, simmilar game? Is it still football at that point?
      6. I don't remember them being good before 92 either.

    2. Re:OK Let's cover it all right here by the_ed_dawg · · Score: 2, Interesting
      You don't need the players' or teams' names to make a football game. I remember some of the old ones calling their teams just "Denver" and "Chicago," with modified logos and player names spelled differently than the real ones.
      ...unless you're a sports fan. Around /., many people need to be reminded that being a nerdy gamer and a sports fan are not mutually exclusive. I'm probably not going to pick up NCAA 2006 because 2005 was a step backwards, but I've got 1998, 2000, 2002 - 2005. Why? I'm an insane Arkansas Razorback fan. I don't want quarterback John Smith with some made-up statistics. I want Matt Jones as my quarterback and a 40 of 4.41s. I want everyone else from the starters to the walk-on kid that won't ever get a chance. Similarly, rabid USC fans everywhere are going to want Tom Malone as their punter and Texas fans want a Bob Stoops look-alike roaming the sidelines on the off chance that the Longhorns don't get gang-raped by Oklahoma (again).

      I understand that this is less important or completely unimportant to some people. Personally, I could care less what any of EA's other games do. However, when I play my college football games, I expect it to be just like my experience at Arkansas from the fight song to calling the hogs to the huge SmartVision scoreboard that you can see from 5 miles away. I don't want to have to enter statistics for a 70 player roster (names I can tolerate) so I can have a team that plays like the Razorbacks. If it doesn't feel like a college football game or if I'm not playing with my team, they can take it elsewhere because I'm not paying for it.

      I don't remember them being good before 92 either.
      They weren't. NCAA Football has been the only EA game that I have ever liked, but even it is starting to spiral down the toilet by "fixing" things that weren't broken to begin with. My personal favorite is how they fixed pass defense by making it impossible to catch a pass. (Great work, fellas!)
      --
      There are two types of people: those prepared for the zombie apocalypse and those who will be eaten.
  5. Re:This would be a bigger deal.... by Senjutsu · · Score: 2

    Sega sold it's Sports studio (Visual Concepts) to Take Two Interactive in January.

    They're not making any more sports games.

  6. Re:This would be a bigger deal.... by UnHolyRam · · Score: 2

    Sega's last college football game was College Football 2k3 which came out during the 2002 season. They hadn't made a football game for the 2003, or 2004 campaign, and prior to this announcement there didn't seem to be any news regarding desire for the 2k series to reprise it's College game for 2005. Now unfortunately they have no chance.

  7. Times like this... by RyoShin · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...I'm reminded of the fact that I never have, and never will, play a sport simulation game. Then I smile. Then I shed a tear over the crushed Crunch bar.

    And then I smile again.

  8. Maybe one day... by Reignking · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Maybe EA will get off of its ass and make NCAA Football for the PC, instead of just PS2, because they'll need to try to recoup the license cost? I hope so, because I wanted to try the game out, but couldn't...

    --
    One man's Funny is another man's Offtopic.
  9. One More... by DesScorp · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Am I missing anything?"

    Yeah..."We're geeks, sports suck, who cares".

    The last time there was a story that touched on Football here, there were a lot of posts along the lines of "I hate sports, the jocks beat me up in high school", etc. The whole "geeks have to be wusses that hate sports" thing chaps my ass.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
  10. That'll teach em... by techstar25 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Apparently EA is showing what happens when you try to undercut them at retail (as in Sega lowering the price of their games to $20).

    In other news EA has signed an exclusive licensing deal with Italy, for the exclusive rights to the likeness of short, fat, mustached, Italian plumbers.

  11. Re:Let loose the dogs of war... by swerk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A company acting in its best interests is different than a company acting against its customers' best interests. But it's not illegal, so it must be ok, right? This is the nasty side of capitalism, when competition is factored out.

    And let's say the next few EA football games are great. That won't exactly be any surprise. It's not like they've been terrible all these years and people buy them anyway. Sports games in general aren't my cup of tea, but Madden and the like are polished games, gripping to those who are into the genre. They have, however, been a bit stale lately, if I understand correctly. How much more innovative or realistic or detailed can a football game get? Video game football has looked almost like the real thing since the Dreamcast. We still use joysticks and buttons, we still pick plays... How much improvement is really going to happen?

    The short answer is, not a lot. EA knows that not much is going to happen in terms of making next year's football game better than this year's. That's exactly the problem -- not that there won't be progress, but that EA _knows_ there won't be progress. With that as a given, they've decided to tie up the market. If there's no innovation to be done, well dammit, we want to be the only ones here! Where the players lose is where that "fact" is broken. Say Sega or 989 Studios or somebody _did_ come up with a genuinely fresh idea for a football game. Say there actually _is_ room for improvement. Well, now that's just too bad. If you're not EA, you can't make a football game and expect it to sell now. Even if your innovation is the greatest thing ever to happen to sports games, you're fooling yourself if you think it will sell without any actual teams attached to it. And then EA's game next year will just hijack your idea anyway. Nobody wins here except EA. Not other developers, but more importantly, not players either.

  12. Possibility... by FalleStar · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm wondering if EA's getting all of these licenses so that if they eventually decide to make their own console they automatically have 100% of the sports gamers out there since they'll be left with no where else to get their fix of Madden and EA's other sports series. I myself wouldn't be influenced by that since I AM one of those people who thinks that there's little innovation in the sports games over the years and are mostly just roster upgrades, but every year Madden is one of the top selling games so I can see that most people either don't care or don't agree with me on that issue (except on SlashDot, it seems evident that I'm not alone in thinking this). So what I'm getting at is that if EA did decide to make their own console one of these generations, these exclusive deals could easily help turn the tides of console wars in their favor.