EA is just getting more and more pathetic as time goes bye. Instead of putting the money towards making their games better, they are spending it on getting rid of competition.

I for one will not be buying any games from EA for the next gen systems; it really will not be that difficult, considering the only good games they have published (not developed, i might add) have been burnout 3 and Oddworld's Stranger.

Getting rid of the competition is all a part of business.

true and while i dont like it, if it wasnt ea, itd be someone else... granted they do have a frighteningly large share of the gaming market...

I am sure Hercules Q Einstein and guitardork will be happy to hear that bit of news. They are Pro EA.

Screw EA Sports

who gives a damn at this point? I used to be a sports gamer I guess. I'd get the new football game to play with the buddies and stuff, but I liked the nfl2k series ever since I had a dreamcast. EA killed the genre for me. I hate the madden game as much as people hate reading dictionaries or something, I just never liked it. Now it's the only one on the market.

I dont even care anymore. There's much better games out there to be had than the same madden shit that's been rehashed since the next gen launch on the ps2.

Obviously true, but i have never seen it done in the video game market remotely to the extent that EA has done in the past 3 months. It's chicken shit, imo.

The fact remains is that Visual concepts were making better, cheaper sports games then EA, and instead of steping up to the plate and making better games, EA bought out the right to make sports title in the given fields.

Big bad EA got their teeth knocked out, but instead of staying and fight, they ran home and called the authorities.

the league offerend license exclusivity, and ea was the one who bid the most... blame ea sure, but the league is more at fault...

Agreed. But are you sure it was a bid, and that sega even tried to bid on it? Or did EA just pay what the league wanted?

I just cannot believe that EA would spend that much money to buy out the sport franchises, instead of putting the money toward making better games. Now without having any competition in the given sports fields, EA sports games will be mediocre at best.

yeah the league will love it when the initial license expires and EA is the only company willing to renew because the startup cost to begin a NFL game is expensive. Scanning player faces and designing a game from scratch wouldn't be worth it right off. EA can offer $10 for NFL eclusive rights in a few years.

EA has always relied on licenses to sell their shit. Rouge Agent blew ass, but i'm sure people only bought it because it had a loose 007 license thrown on...and that game was actually developed by EA.

well i for one like madden

Im sick of EA, they are just mad that ESPN 2k5 was better than madden and went for 20.00.

thats fine. It's called personal preferences. I dont like madden and resent the fact the market is only limited to a product I hate. That's fine, I just won't buy it.

yea, now EA has no reason to improve their sports genre. and i will miss sega/espn's football games, they were fun and cheap

Or it's the opposite, without upgrade it becomes a monopoly.

They now have MORE pressure than ever to continue to upgrade and push.

I for one respect EA for doing this. Sega couldn't afford to keep up. They hoped dropping the price would help, but it didnt.

uh..sega didnt drop the price. Sega got out because they got bought out by a BS merger and are a shell of their past self now. Take Two publishes the nfl2k games now, and they bought many of MS's old sport game studios if I remember correctly. Take Two has cash, and still sold games at $20, so EA could do it easily too. But now EA can charge $70 for madden, charge for internet play or roster updates...and no one can do shit about it..and I laugh.

Games dont need to be $55, as Take Two has shown. They released a title that could sell at regular price for $20. EA is just better at marketing.

What the hell are you writing about?

EA will have more pressure to make their games better because ther is no competition?

You respect EA for monopolizing, because they felt threatend by Sega, and instead of putting the money towards a better game, they just illimitated the competition?

Makes sense.

Seriously foe hammer what are you still in school, in the business world you look out for yourself, fuck the competition if you can, you look out for yourself and you manipulate situations to advantage you the best you can, are take two gonna pay for EA ppls new houses nope, so they do what they can to do it themselves

No shit, business is business. Thanks for pointing that out to me.

I just think it is chicken shit of EA. And this is the first time anything like this has happened in the video/computer game industry.

We, the gamers, are the ones who lose here. With no competition, EA will not be pushed to make a better game, and besides that, we now do not have the choice of which sports game to buy.

are you all really going to not buy a game because of no official licences? is that what makes the game for you? soccer fans arent nearly as petty...

pro evo has been kicking fifas ass for years and people dont seem to mind the lack of a license, and those who do make a mod for it replacing the teams...

Foe-hammer, you really need to take an econ class. You know nothing about business.

I think that new blitz game sounds cool. You can take steroids and do drugs and shit. Midway teamed up with the guys that wrote playmakers to stick it to the NFL. The NFL told midway that over the top violence wouldnt be allowed. Playmakers was a huge show for ESPN, but the NFL threatened to pull their games off ESPN if they keep it up.

Like what?

I understand how business works, and thanks to all who are pointing out these obvious points. But you obviously do not understand the point i'm trying to get across.

your point = ea has gotten license exclusivity and you dont like it... itll supposedly styme competition and breed inferior games...

i think everyone gets that.

Apparently EVERYONE does not, because some are thinking that I do not understand the business/economics reason for it. It is not even the topic at hand. No shit, EA bought the NFL, NCAA (and the list will continue) rights to get rid of the competition, which, they hope, will generate more money for them. Whether that was a sound business decision is yet to be seen. It's not rocket science. One does not have to take a collage level econ class to realize why businesses eliminate competition.

My point is: what made them do it, the alternatives, and what will/maybe the consequences of it. The whole economics side is irrelevant. There is no need to state the damn obvious.

- If EA did not feel threatened by Sega, they would not have forked over millions of dollars to eliminate them from even competing.

- EA must not have had enough confidence in their product to compete with Sega.

- EA could have made more money if they used the million they spent on buying out the sports rights, into making their games better.

Ahhh....yes. There is no supposedly about it. When you eliminate the competition, you definitely thwart it.
- Competition is what makes companies produce better products at lower prices. Without competition, EA might not feel the need to improve their sports games much, and may charge higher prices.

- Us consumers are the real losers, because of what was said above, and we will only have one choice if we want to play licensed sports games on the next gen systems.


Please, anyone, tell me how EA buying out the professional sports licenses is a good thing for consumers?

its not a good thing, and its not nec a bad thing... if people werent so hung up on the license it wouldnt matter in the slightest... ill bring up pro evo yet again, this game is considered to be much better than fifa which has all the licensed teams and such... people still choose this game over fifa, whats stoping others from choosing a better football game over a supposedly inferior one with a license? abs nothing...


wrong, while being threatened by sega's current product might have been a small factor, the thought of another company having the exclusive license was the main and driving reason behind the deal...


wrong again, people who are complaining about this deal are the ones who arent confident with segas product to compete with ea's... licenses dont affect gameplay...


they could have, but then someone else would have bought the license and then their efforts would be pointless right? since licenses are everything...


very few companies release games at lower than the standard $50... segas line was most definatly the eception... ea still tries to improve fifa (i keep coming back to this because it is an exact parrallel to this situation)... and games have been projected to be around $10-15 more expensive for the next gen anyway...


true, but what does the license matter anyway? if it matters that much, spend an afternoon changing the rosters...

[quote]wrong, while being threatened by sega's current product might have been a small factor, the thought of another company having the exclusive license was the main and driving reason behind the deal...[/quote]
I disagree. If that was the case, why did EA not buy the exclusive sports licenses 15 yrs ago. Something besides the worry of others buying the rights had to have been the reason. Plus, your assuming that Sega, or others, even tried to buy the rights. Do you even know that it was in fact a bid, and that EA out bid Sega? I believe that Sega, or others, did not even consider buying the rights, because it was so damn expensive, and they did not think EA would even try.

[quote]wrong again, people who are complaining about this deal are the ones who arent confident with segas product to compete with ea's... licenses dont affect gameplay...[/quote]
Your right, licenses do not affect gameplay, but without an NFL, NBA, or NCAA license most people will not buy sega's sports games even if it is better than EA's. Blaim it on the masses. Plus, this is football and basketball, not soccer, we are talking about here. Sports titles sell the most in the USA, and in the US, Football and basketball are much more important then soccer.

[quote]they could have, but then someone else would have bought the license and then their efforts would be pointless right? since licenses are everything...[/quote]
Again, how do you know this that someone else would have? No one has purchased the rights in all of the years of videogaming history.
[
quote]true, but what does the license matter anyway? if it matters that much, spend an afternoon changing the rosters...[/quote]
Idealogically, yes, but don't kid yourself, it matters a lot to the masses, and the masses enjoy their football/basketball games the most. Plus, one has to hack the game to change the roster, and the majority of people will not have the means to do this.

EDIT: Also, the appearance of the players are as well tied up in the license, and with the next gen systems, people will want their players to look like their actual counterparts. A simple roster hack will not fix this.

Disgard above; retarded editing system


I disagree. If that was the case, why did EA not buy the exclusive sports licenses 15 yrs ago. Something besides the worry of others buying the rights had to have been the reason. Plus, your assuming that Sega, or others, even tried to buy the rights. Do you even know that it was in fact a bid, and that EA out bid Sega? I believe that Sega, or others, did not even consider buying the rights, because it was so damn expensive, and they did not think EA would even try.


Your right, licenses do not affect gameplay, but without an NFL, NBA, or NCAA license most people will not buy sega's sports games even if it is better than EA's. Blaim it on the masses. Plus, this is football and basketball, not soccer, we are talking about here. Sports titles sell the most in the USA, and in the US, Football and basketball are much more important then soccer.


Again, how do you know this that someone else would have? No one has purchased the rights in all of the years of videogaming history.


Idealogically, yes, but don't kid yourself, it matters a lot to the masses, and the masses enjoy their football/basketball games the most. Plus, one has to hack the game to change the roster, and the majority of people will not have the means to do this.

EDIT: Also, the appearance of the players are as well tied up in the license, and with the next gen systems, people will want their players to look like their actual counterparts. A simple roster hack will not fix this.

I'm looking forward to the new blitz game, but in the US, licensed sports game only sell these days. It would be next to impossible to compete with madden now. It's not like the old NES days or something where a bunch of unlicensed sport games all looked alike so it didnt matter. People want to play as McNabb or Vick (aka Ron Mexico).

EA didnt want to be caught looking the other way again. Remember when Acclaim bought the NFL rights for their QBC club years ago? Madden didnt have real teams. Even though it was the better game, it probably lost many sales.

I dont blame EA for watching their own back, I just think it sucks for people like me that don't like madden. I'll never call this a monopoly or anything like that.

Hey Fool-Hammer, let me type this slow so you can understand this. No competition means worse games. If there were more competition, companies will have to develop better games to get you to buy their game. COMPETITION IS GOOD. MONOPIES ARE BAD FOR EVERYONE, AND YES THAT EVEN INCLUDES KIDS LIKE YOURSELF.

well dont call it a monopoly because it isnt. EA's deals aren't actually preventing anyone from making a football game.

Q. Can anyone make a college/pro football game with team names, player names and stadiums?

A. Nope, EA has bought the rights. That my friend is a monopoly.

pst, hey was being sarcastic...


that is not a monopoly... if they were the only ones who could make football games period, then itd be a monopoly...

Your wrong. No one else can make a game using any real names. That is a monopoly. Not sure why you can not understand that. No one wants to play a football game with as the Texas Goat Ropers or New York Midgets.

be definition that is not a monopoly, the license and teams used does not matter...

they DO have a monopoly on licenced nfl and ncaa football games, but thats the same as saying Coca-Cola has a monopoly on sodas named Diet Coke...

True, but the coca-cola company owns diet coke. EA does not own the NFL, or NCAA.

I agree, under the circumstances it is like a monopoly, but by definition it is not.

well ok, its like saying a record label has a monopoly on an artist... and right now, ea does own the license...

Right, I guess that somehow makes me stupider or less of a person because I happen to like Madden somehow. Ooookay.... And by the way, if Madden started sucking then I would stop playing it, I'm not the dick sucking little EA fanboy you probably envision me as. In the meantime, don't you have something better to be doing than holding a grudge like a girl and making a point about something that I'm sure no one cares about? *wooooo* I like some of EA's games!!! I guess I need to be flogged and skullfucked by some stupid underspoken person who makes a point about being Anti EA so that people will notice them and make them feel better about themselves.

That's not to say I have something against people who don't like EA, I mean to each his own, right? But I'm entitled to my opinion, as well as the guy who thinks differently is entitled to his. Is there any reason to say something stupid about someone because they don't agree with you?

But back to the main point, its not like this really hurt the market anyways. They only bought the NCAA football license, and they WERE the only company that has made NCAA football games anyways...I personally don't play NCAA football, so I won't buy it anyways, but still, if anything this allows EA to make better NCAA games because they can collaborate more with college football teams and stuff. Of course, this does stop any other companies from making NCAA football games. But still, no one else makes them anyways.

Ok...what would you call NCAA collage football 2003, developed by sega?

crappy?



actually, Sega stopped their NCAA games conveniently the year before EA won the license to all BCS bowl games. So they had a reason to stop making NCAA games, like every other company. I mean, whats a college game without the Bowls and all?