EA actively seeking to corner the entire sports gaming marke

jpinard · Post by **jpinard** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 5:24 am

All I have to say is Nascar Racing. EA could not compete with Papyrus, who every year put out a WAY better product than EA. The reviews for EA's Nascar were always lower because everyone had "something better to compare it to". Now that EA has the exclusive license for Nascar, they still haven't come close to matching what Papyrus did 3 years ago with realism.

Those of you defending EA and saying it's the NFLPA's fault need a reality check. EA has been actively trying to corner all aspects of the sports market for years. There are discussions occurring for the NHL and NBA as I speak.

What many of you don't know, is that EA has been badgering the NFLPA tog et exclusive rights for years. It just happens to be, EA finally wrote a check big enough for them to bite. What people also don't consider is that just because EA did not buy exclusive rights, DOES NOT MEAN Sega would have. The NFLPA put a ridiculous price on sole licensing. I doubt they would have lowered it to "just get anyone to solely license them".

NOTE: EA owns exclusive rights to FIFA and PGA as well.

So, I'd suggest you all take a hard look at the Monopolistic tactics EA is employing and see what a terrible long-term affect this will have on our games. With nothing to compare their mediocre offerings of NHL to, and no competition, things will generally stay status quo. I mean, with GOOD competition for their hockey games, EA still puts out a mediocre hockey game. You think it will magically be different if they have ZERO competition? Every year that game becomes less and less of a true sim of hockey - and that's with excellent competition.

As far as I can see, the majority of you want a REAL football experience. After all, we spend hundreds of hours trying to "fix" the game only to come up short every single year. Nathan from EA says, "Quality will not suffer". I'm not worried about "quality per say". I'm worried about finally getting a game that feels like football. Not like Superhero Bloodbowl (yes I'm exaggerating).

Personally I like Madden, but every year I find it exceptionally lacking in feeling like real football. There are games from a DECADE ago that had a better simulation engine than Madden has ever had. So I'd suggest you all seriously consider signing this petition to reverse the decision to corner the market. If we don't speak up now, this trend will snowball and will leave us with sports gaming products that year after year fail to innovate due to lack of competition (if you don't believe me look at Nascar, FIFA, and PGA - and the painful crawl of innovation in those titles the last year).

Here's the link: http://www.petitiononline.com/nfleacon/petition.html

<edited for typos, and to apologize to those that have already seen this on my other forums>

Jeff V · Post by **Jeff V** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 8:59 am

I don't follow. If EA is spending all that money, wouldn't they have to increase their own fan base to turn a profit? How are they going to do this if they let the quality of games slide?

I don't play many sports games (okay, none in years). I did do some reviews on non-EA sports games a few years ago, and I must say they were universally craptastic. I really don't see how having inferior products in the marketplace for the sake of competition benefits the consumer.

If the other publishers hadn't mis-managed their own licenses as they did, perhaps they would have the money and the interest to block this. I'd never advocate rewarding failure, and lets face it, EA won.

RookieCAF · Post by **RookieCAF** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 9:04 am

EA are corporate Thugs. Period.

jpinard · Post by **jpinard** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 9:07 am

They're depending on non-discerning players. How big do you think this sticker on the box will be?: "ONLY NFL FOOTBALL AVAILABLE"

They've basicaslly scrubbed their HUGE competition with the entire ESPN NFL Football series. I saw a report that they've already put their new price-point into action (I think it's $10 more per copy), and if they put out a mediocre product - how many dumb kids will still buy it? LOTS.

<edited for typos>

KiloOhm · Post by **KiloOhm** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 9:14 am

Jeff V wrote:I don't follow. If EA is spending all that money, wouldn't they have to increase their own fan base to turn a profit? How are they going to do this if they let the quality of games slide?

Um....since noone else can put out a "NFL" game then if you want to play one you HAVE to buy their product. It's kind of like your choice in OS, you have basically none if you want to play the latest games. Their fan base will increase because all the NFL game junkies that will want an updated version next year will buy EA since noone else will have official players / stadiums.

jpinard · Post by **jpinard** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 9:52 am

I should also point out that Sega did NOT mismanage the NFL license, nor their use of it. In fact they did a much better job than EA. It's just Sega doesn't have $300 million to blow on licensing fees. EA does.

raydude · Post by **raydude** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 10:25 am

I guess I'll duplicate my 2 cents from CG here:

Wouldn't it be simpler to just *NOT* buy crappy EA sports games?

I mean, who is being hurt here?

The unsuspecting consumer?
Caveat Emptor I say. If Joe Blow can't be bothered to do research and read reviews then he deserves to blow $50 on a bad football game. If EA is the only game in town then send a message by NOT BUYING THE BAD GAME!

The hardcore gamer?
Is there a hardcore gamer who honestly cannot find another genre to play in his backlog? Maybe this will finally get us to dig into that stack of unplayed games.

The developer?
Anybody who was hoping to wow the world with football AI can take his AI skillz and use them to beef up FPS, RTS, or TBS AI. All types of games can benefit from an AI whiz kid, not just football. Ditto for graphics programmers, music, etc.

Think about it. EA paid a pretty penny to get exclusive licensing. That money has to be made up in profit from selling games. If the games don't sell well, then the licensing becomes a liability. The key point is:

BAD GAMES MUST NOT BE BOUGHT!

So think about that next time EA puts out a sports game. Spread the word. Tell your friends: IF THE GAME DOESN'T FIT, DROP IT AND QUIT.

It'll fix the situation better than a petition.

raydude · Post by **raydude** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 10:27 am

Their fan base will increase because all the NFL game junkies that will want an updated version next year will buy EA since noone else will have official players / stadiums.

Just who are these NFL game junkies? Are there any here? If so can we out them and then beat them over the head saying

"BAD GAMES MUST NOT BE BOUGHT!"

?

jpinard · Post by **jpinard** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 10:29 am

raydude wrote:
Their fan base will increase because all the NFL game junkies that will want an updated version next year will buy EA since noone else will have official players / stadiums.
Just who are these NFL game junkies? Are there any here? If so can we out them and then beat them over the head saying

"BAD GAMES MUST NOT BE BOUGHT!"

?

Hehe

The Preacher · Post by **The Preacher** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 11:38 am

Jeff V wrote:I don't play many sports games (okay, none in years). I did do some reviews on non-EA sports games a few years ago, and I must say they were universally craptastic. I really don't see how having inferior products in the marketplace for the sake of competition benefits the consumer.

As you said, you haven't looked at the competition in years. If you were to look up the reviews of the Sega games today, they are almost-universally heralded. There is certainly debate about which is better, but the "craptastic competition" has long since passed.

If the other publishers hadn't mis-managed their own licenses as they did, perhaps they would have the money and the interest to block this. I'd never advocate rewarding failure, and lets face it, EA won.

Advocating failure? Puhleeze. Hey, I'm a hardcore capitalist but that also entails knowing the what's what. EA and the leagues have every right to do this and I would never argue otherwise. But this decision wasn't won or lost based on the mismanaged licenses, poor products or any similar nonsense. It was won because EA is the 800lb gorilla with enough capital to displace the competition. Do you really think that, by all rumored accounts, EA overpaid because there isn't any competition? It argues just the contrary. Again, there is nothing wrong with that per se, but let's call a spade a spade.

jpinard · Post by **jpinard** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 12:37 pm

Well put Mr. Preacher... 8)

Eel Snave · Post by **Eel Snave** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 12:55 pm

Of course, the vast majority of gamers aren't people who actually KNOW what they're purchasing. Why does Deer Hunter top bestseller lists?

People buy Madden out of habit for the updated rosters, just like they'll buy the next GTA sight unseen.

Exodor · Post by **Exodor** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 1:05 pm

Eel Snave wrote:People buy Madden out of habit for the updated rosters, just like they'll buy the next GTA sight unseen.

Well, that and a franchise mode that works.

I played both games last year and I found Madden to have the superior franchise mode, while ESPN had superior multi-play (unless, of course, you enjoy computer teams subbing people like Warren Sapp in as punt returners).

Still, this is a sucky deal for football gamers. Madden has been milking the same old engine for years now. My only hope is they develop a new engine to coincide with the XBox2 / PS3 release, but I fear we have a few more years of incremental improvements to go through first.

jpinard · Post by **jpinard** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 1:33 pm

Eel Snave wrote: People buy Madden out of habit for the updated rosters, just like they'll buy the next GTA sight unseen.

Not true. I bought it NOT for the updated roster but for supposed innovations and for the football experience.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 2:17 pm

jpinard wrote:Not true. I bought it NOT for the updated roster but for supposed innovations and for the football experience.

I have yet to find a football game that doesn't commit the three cardinal sins. When I find it, I will die to protect it. Until then, I don't care enough to upgrade my game except maybe ever three years or so.

1.) The ability to play like Super Bowl Champions in the last 5 minutes of any game, when you are beating the piss out of a team.

2.) The magic offensive play that never, EVER fails.

3.) The magic defensive play that never, EVER fails.

I am currently playing ESPN NFL2K5 on whatever the default difficulty, realism settings are.

My defensive tackle, Pat Williams, broke Strahan's sack record by Week 4 and ended the regular season with 77 sacks (13 so far in the playoffs). Pat Williams. That's like something out of Techmo Bowl.

And it isn't even any particular play. On any alignment with 4 down lineman, take a defensive tackle and the instant you see it's a pass play, do a spin move. You beat the O-lineman about 70% of the time and get a sack about 50% of that time.

It's ridiculous. But I do it because I love getting shutouts.

Eel Snave · Post by **Eel Snave** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 2:26 pm

I hate pitching shutouts. I like a well-fought game, just like a regular game. I try picking really crappy teams just so that I can play a normal game. It's frustrating, but every year, I put myself through the same agony. This year I stopped, and from here on out I will as well.

gellar · Post by **gellar** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 3:23 pm

I played and purchased bith ESPN and Madden this year. Both do certain, different things very well, but they also royally suck ass at others. When it comes to the flaws, the EA development crew seems pretty lazy, while the Sega/Take Two development crew is either incompetent or resource constrained.

I've given up on hoping for a "great" football game, but instead play two "good" ones. This year Madden was my choice (2nd year in a row) in the end, as it had a franchise mode that actually wasn't borked beyond belief.

gellar

jpinard · Post by **jpinard** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 3:28 pm

I don't have a console and only play Madden on PC. Ironic huh?

naednek · Post by **naednek** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 9:59 pm

so if you only play football on pc's what's the big deal then. It's not like there's any other NFL game for the PC. Besides the football manager types.

jonsauce · Post by **jonsauce** » Fri Dec 17, 2004 12:19 am

so if you only play football on pc's what's the big deal then. It's not like there's any other NFL game for the PC. Besides the football manager types.

I'm one of the "I only play football on the PC people" but I don't like this deal since it takes away the competition.

naednek · Post by **naednek** » Fri Dec 17, 2004 12:23 am

i don't like the deal either, and I liked Madden over ESPN this year. However, in the pc market there is no competition, which in the pc market, this deal doesn't really affect you (you as in the PC madden player or sports in general)

jpinard · Post by **jpinard** » Fri Dec 17, 2004 4:29 am

I don't like the precedant EA is setting. And I think it's a VERY dangerous one. That is why I'm so upset about this. Every time EA gets stiff competition, instead of just "competing", they use Guerilla tactics to squash the competition. They are trying to do it with Hockey right now. And sure I don't buy EA's hockey anymore because it sucks like a big-ass mutant leech, but I don't think it's fair to the console people to be FORCED to have no choices as well. Worst of all, having nothing but a horrible mediocre game to choose from for their Hockey.

EA Sports will soon be able to change their slogan from "It's in the GAME!" to "The Only Game in Town!".

Atalante · Post by **Atalante** » Fri Dec 17, 2004 7:18 am

jpinard wrote:EA Sports will soon be able to change their slogan from "It's in the GAME!" to "The Only Game in Town!".

Actually, they already did change their slogan. To "Challenge Everything".

Oh, the irony, the irony...

Jeff V · Post by **Jeff V** » Fri Dec 17, 2004 7:35 am

KiloOhm wrote: Um....since noone else can put out a "NFL" game then if you want to play one you HAVE to buy their product.

If the game is lousy, why would you want to play it? There are other licenses that are controlled by a single publisher - if they abuse them (and they usually do), I just don't buy the games. Is it that difficult for people to exhibit self-control?

raydude · Post by **raydude** » Fri Dec 17, 2004 11:44 am

Jeff V wrote: If the game is lousy, why would you want to play it? There are other licenses that are controlled by a single publisher - if they abuse them (and they usually do), I just don't buy the games. Is it that difficult for people to exhibit self-control?

And with that, its time to out those of you who fall into the NFL-gotta-have-it-even-if-it-sucks gamer category! Come on, raise your hands if you can't stop yourself from buying sucky football games. It's okay.

The Preacher · Post by **The Preacher** » Fri Dec 17, 2004 2:07 pm

Jeff V wrote:
KiloOhm wrote: Um....since noone else can put out a "NFL" game then if you want to play one you HAVE to buy their product.
If the game is lousy, why would you want to play it? There are other licenses that are controlled by a single publisher - if they abuse them (and they usually do), I just don't buy the games. Is it that difficult for people to exhibit self-control?

Couldn't agree more with this.