If I wanted to play Monopoly I'd be a car, not a gamer.

[toolow4yu]

Is anyone else tired of all this "exsclusive" licensing?
In all fairness it is confirmed that EA started it by buying a 15 year deal for ESPN/NFL, and then LIED to the people by saying it was'nt to cut out 2K, it was only to give the CONSUMER what they wanted. BS.
2k bought the MLB license but what choice did they have? The NBA won't give anyone a solo shot, theyre breaking it up by different categories so noone gets the whole thing. But the NFL/ESPN + EA Sports being so greedy = a domino effect I fear will never hault.
As much of a fan of some EA titles I am, I'm highly considering boycotting them for starting this. I dont believe 2k had a choice but to counteract or they would be driven out of business by those greedy losers at EA.

[Trevytrev11]

I understand your frustration, but that is business for you. As much as I hate it, too. I think the blame lies with the NFL for allowing it to happen. Any and almost every company in EA's position would have done it. Why would you not want to gurantee your self a complete 100% full share of the market.

Think what would happen to cocacola's profit if they were able to get rid of Pepsi.

We had this discussion in one of my other posts.

This is the way I see it: Madden has been around since the early 90's. Over that period of time they have proven themself to be the dominant title in Video football games. (This doesn't mean they have the best product). When most people think of football on Xbox or PS2, etc. Madden is the first game to come in to people's heads. It sales more titles every year than just about any other game.

I strongly agree that the 2k series was better over all, but what did they really do to get their product to the people. They did lower the price of the game, but I feel that they market their products very poorly. I also think the fact that they change developers so much hurts them.

Madden has been EA sports since it began. This series, in half that time, has been Segasports, ESPN and now 2k. A lot of people (mostly ignorant ones) probably failed to see that this was the same franchise when the names changed. EA have always been a white box with red and blue writing. I can't even count how many different lables, colors, etc. have been used by this franchise.

If the NFL looks at the yearly sales for both games, I guarantee they would see steady and rising sales for Madden and very up and down and sales for 2k.

Now say you are the NFL. You have 2 companies paying you say $200 million each a year to use your likeness. One company is strong and profits way more from your likeness (EA)than the other (2K). Now that strong company wants the full rights and is willing to offer you more than they were getting from both companies before-say $1 billion. It would be horrible for the NFL to not take this opportunity because they are making more than double what they were and they have their name on the "most successful product of the industry". Its a good deal for EA because they have no competition. Anyone that wants a NFL football game has to buy there game. It sucks for 2k-big time.

Again, I can't stress the fact that 2k was a better product, but since they have been out, I feel that they have done everything wrong to "push" their product. The game itself is good, but their marketing, their constant changing of the companies, etc. led to this deal being available. I think they dug themselves a whole.

The deal sucks for us, we get one product with no competition. There is no other company that EA has to compete with or that will be pushing them to make the best possible game. We as the gamers lose out.

I jsut don't see the blame falling on EA. They did what any other company would have done. In business, it is survival of the fittest. I don't really blame the NFL-they received an offer they could not refuse. Maybe it goes to 2k. They had the better product, but enough people didn't know.

[toolow4yu]

To an extent I see what your saying, but then go read EA's quotes on the matter.
They basically outright said to the consumer "We know whats best for you, not you, so heres what youll be getting for the next 15 years and we dont have to try anymore or lower our prices."
2K HAS changed hands alot as far as developers but if you notice a pattern of them also getting better as they progressed, and when it was segasports it never changed hands, segasports is 2k. 2K always had lower prices and an equal or better product and EA didn't agree with that. I like the fact that 2k has the MLB rights now but ONLY because they had no other choice, it was either that or sit around and wait for EA to do the same thing. I certainly feel EA will come out with a lesser product in the future and will refuse to listen to forums, emails, phone calls, ect. for advice on what consumers want because theyll know for at least 14 years to come after their next venture into the football world in 06 they will still be the only ones with the market. I like what the NBA has done, props to them for not selling out and urinating all over the little guy.
I'm going to write EA sports a letter, I've always respected them and have been playing Madden since 94. That doesnt mean I dont want to play another game alongside Madden though. I will let them know how it may not mean a big difference in their profit, I will never purchase another EA game again, of any sort, not just the football. I may borrow them or even rent them but will never purchase the games. I understand how the NFL and EA wants to make more money, but lets face it, they werent going broke anyway.
When I joined the Army and went to war in 02 I didnt do it for the money.
I got out of the Army in August and I now work at a hospital, I dont do that for the money either.
And when I get done with the process and assuming everything goes right I will be on the Police Department here, which I will not be in for the money either. See a pattern here? People like me who don't do things for the money and still have put a massive amount of money in their pockets have to suffer because theyre pockets ran out of room a long time ago, so they went and bought more pockets to fill.

[Trevytrev11]

Great Post. I got a ton of respect for you and thanks for fighting for people like me.

[Red Dot Lt]

im already boycotting EA, you can too.

[Trevytrev11]

I would, but I'm really looking forward to getting MVP.

Also, maybe its because I'm in the business field for a large company, but I don't really blame EA.

[Let's.Go.Tech]

I understand the compulsion to not out-right blame EA or the NFL for negotiating this deal. It is the dream of every business to squash the competition and corner the market.

The problem I have and that toolow4yu alluded to was that now EA has the unregulated jurisdiction to produce an inferior game. The Madden series of football games became markedly better when Sega sports entered the market. Most of the Madden football games from '94 to about '99 were just roster updates. No doubt some of the newer features are a result of newer technologies, but the game grew by leaps and bounds due to the fact that they had competition. When consumers have a choice, consumers win - that's capitalism. If I feel that 2K sports offers a better product, I buy 2K sports products. If enough people agree with this philosophy, then the EA developers get off of their duffs and create a better product to gain the better market share. Without this competition, EA can continue to raise prices and go back to the earlier days where all they had to do was update the rosters and nobody can do a thing about it.

I personally liked the MVP series better than the 2K series of baseball games. Having been in independent and semi-pro leagues now for more than 12 years, I thought the accuracy of on-field play was superior in MVP, especially with the pitching interface. But now, I am regulated to purchasing a product from a company I wouldn't have considered in order to get the players I want. That's not capitalism, it's totalitarianism.

I read some of your posts you had with sleepytercel and I saw both points of view. I think the solution lies somewhere between your argument and his. While I fail to see sleepytercel as a communist, I also won't pidgeon-hole you as a heartless ty****. Many free-market societies are thriving in central and western Europe and some economies are dictated solely by the free-market. While I would agree with you that communism supresses individual principles and aspirations, capitalism in the form in which you argue is a cold and callous point of view that enrages others globally and forces others in the world to view Americans as heartless, money-grubbing, self-serving "capitalists."

The bottom line is, what is supposed to drive capitalism is the idea of a "free-market" in which citizens are free to choose which products best suit their individual needs. That's the heart of capitalism. It is, after all why monopolies are illegal in this country. Monopolies inhibit the true capitalistic mantra as much as communism does. The idea of a competitive "free-market" is that companies will strive to make better products so that consumers will choose their product over another. That's the freedom of individual choice and capitalism as a whole. This monopoly created by the NFL and EA Sports - which you seem to be tolerating and defending - is just as destructive as saying that all companies must create the same product and offer it at the same price.

This is why sleepytercel was jumping all over you. This is not an argument of capitalism vs. communism. This is an argument between semantics within the principles of capitalistic societies.

My personal belief is that you're both wrong. Any economist would tell you that the best solution would be to allow the system to continue as it was and the market would dictate who made the better product. And I'm not an economist.....

[Trevytrev11]

I agree with you 100%.

I never said I like what EA did. I repeated the fact that we, as gamers, are the losers. I just said that I don't blame them.

Whether it is right or wrong, I believe that most companies would do the same thing. Every company would love 100% of the market.

Lets face it, most people are not in business to make nice, they are in it to make money.
In most cases, compeition exists between several companies, not just two. Had their been 3 or 4quality football games, this may not have happened. The NFL could have pretty much depended on the fact that every year, there would be at least 2 or 3 and usually 4 companies paying to use the rights.

With 2 companies, things change. Say next year 2k went out of business. EA would be able to pay next to nothing for those rights because there would be no other buyers.

The NFL took a chance and said we can offer exclusive rights to one company for a much higher premium that way if 2k does go out of business, we are still getting paid. EA jumped at the opportunity.

In this case, the NFL is the monopoly. There is no other place you can go to get NFL rights. They were in the drivers seat to make this deal happen.

The real difference in my "debate" with Sleepyterecel is that he was saying what he believed was right and i was stating the fact that "as unfair as it is, its the way the market works and its how capitalism worked in this situation." I didn't say I agree with it, but i definatly belive it-because it just happened.

I also believe that this is a "free market" economy. but still companies go out of business everyday. And it usually isn't because their product was worse, its because they have bad business minds. I strongly agree that this series, as good as it is, did everything wrong in the eyes of business.

1)Who ever release a title first is going to steal a quick share of the market. Some people just want a baseball game and will pick up the first title that comes out with no knowledge of the actual product.
-year in and year out they release games after EA.

2) The marketing for this company is bad. I can remember either this past Super Bowl or the one before, seeing a Madden demo for the xbox 360. (My point is that I can remember EA commericals)EA gets athletes to endorse their games. These guys get Tracy Morgan. In all of the years of 2k, I can remember Tracy Morgan in some commercials and the recent one with Shaq's sweat, I can remember several EA commercials. Take the Shaq commercial-a perfect opportunity to show of the game and they show Shaq shotting a free throw.
I also explained that they constantly change their packaging.
-EA Sports: "Its in the game"
-What does 2K have?

3) Year in and year out I see game requests neglected. Instead they add gimmicks (1st person, slam zone, etc).
-EA nips those things in the bud.


In terms of competition of actual products. I would say that across the board, they were pretty equal. I like MVP better then 2k's baseball, but like Football and Basketball better on 2k than Madden and NBA Live.

In terms of business-sense, I feel that EA blows 2k out of the water.

Now your argument about letting the consumers decide which is a better product. Consumers don't just judge the actual product, but everything that goes into it. While EA may not make a better product, they do everythign else better and that is why Madden out-sells 2k Eveery year. The consumers have decided this year in and year out and this is why Madden received this opportunity. Had the two products been equal across the boards, a true, free market would have each company with equal profits, but it comes down to more than just the final product.

Had the two companies had even sales, the deal would not have happened. In this case the NFL saw 2k as a possible future liability and protected itself.

EA, by dominating this market, put themself in a position to reap the benefits.

Do I believe it-Yes, but that doesn't mean that I agree that it is morally right.

I really think the gov't could have stepped in and prevented this from happening, but they didn't.

My goal was not to spread my personal beliefs and in no way did I do this.

My goal or point was, that while his hopes and dreams were nice, its not the way things work.