Another Exclusive Football Deal for EA

[quote name='big_squirtle'][quote name='CrashSpyro123'][quote name='MorPhiend'][quote name='big_squirtle']At this rate the only football games Sega / ESPN will be able to make are:
ESPN 2K6 Rugby
ESPN 2K6 Mutant Football League

(Note: these are not real upcoming ESPN games)[/quote]

Mutant League Football was made by EA.[/quote]

Also, EA is working on a Rugby game for this year, too.[/quote]

Right, but the rights to these havent been sold solely to EA (as of yet). So Sega/ ESPN could still make a game for either one. Not that they will.[/quote]

So what are you saying? There is a real Mutant League in outer space that licenses their image to game companies??? Are you feeling okay?
 
nope, sorry, it's more than 'somewhat' of a point. EA does not have a monopoly on football. They now own the rights to two leagues...but, that is the individual league's to do with as they please, it is not some commodity that all have a right to.

As far as the notion of the game of football is concerned, EA does not own the rights to that, otherwise it would be a monopoly in the business sense of the word.

Again, I'm not saying that what EA is doing is a good thing for the video game industry. I'm just saying that you're wrong to call it a monopoly in the business sense. There's a difference between being an 'evil monolithic corporate juggernaut' and being a monopoly.
 
[quote name='Death2Sanity']nope, sorry, it's more than 'somewhat' of a point. EA does not have a monopoly on football. They now own the rights to two leagues...but, that is the individual league's to do with as they please, it is not some commodity that all have a right to.

As far as the notion of the game of football is concerned, EA does not own the rights to that, otherwise it would be a monopoly in the business sense of the word.

Again, I'm not saying that what EA is doing is a good thing for the video game industry. I'm just saying that you're wrong to call it a monopoly in the business sense. There's a difference between being an 'evil monolithic corporate juggernaut' and being a monopoly.[/quote]

That's exactly the point that most are trying to make though. No one is saying that the DOJ is coming after EA. But they do have a "monopoly" on the NFL and AFL now. While yes, organizations have the right to license their likenesses to a single company, it doesn't make it the right thing to do / the best for the consumer / the best for the industry. No one says that there is necessarily an upcoming legal battle. People are just upset that a single company has decided to monopolize an aspect of a sport which they enjoy very much. And they have done it unfairly as well.

It would be one thing if the NFL had said, okay the highest bidder gets the rights to our likeness. But when EA saw some competition, they did an under-handed, behind closed doors deal, hurting all of their prospective customers in the process. That is not a good way to win customer loyalty.
 
[quote name='CheapyD']Here is how I read it:

"We don't want any other game developers to be able to make any game that even resembles football," said Larry Probst, Chairman and CEO of EA.[/quote]

My thoughts exactly reading the article. COuldn't have said it better my self.
 
[quote name='MorPhiend']It's no use. He's wrong and he knows it. He just wants to be a pain. Yuo know, one of those people who you tell the sky is blue and the grass is green and they argue the other way around.[/quote]

...that's a valid debate point how?

Everybody's entitled to their opinion.

It's just that, in the eyes of the law, there is a clear definition of what a monopoly is. If you think EA is violating antitrust laws and is a monopoly, try to take it to court. Explain how you consider owning player and team names which belong to a private group (the NFL/AFL), and try to understand when you get ignored.

EA is becoming troublesome in all these exclusive rights they're buying. I hate to see it happen. But they're not doing anything monopolistic in buying up league rights. Until they get some license that makes it such that they're the only ones able to make a football game, you're using the word 'monopoly' incorrectly. Insult EA all you want, but stick to 'corporate juggernaut' or whatever, because those are opinions. 'Monopoly' has a definition...and this is not it.
 
About the only thing Sega can do is make a football with numbers, city named teams with colors and make up stadiums. Is it legal to use old stadiums? Like the Vet or Franklin Field in Philly? Also does this include retired players or players who have passed away? Keep in mind how Madden 64 was back in the day, no players names, but they had numbers.
 
I was just wondering about something. I have seen a lot of posters on this board who talk about how much they dislike sports gamens, but then complain that EA has the only NFL game. I understand it limits the choices available, but if you aren't buying an NFL game anyway, it really has no impact on you at all.

By the way, I doubt an Arena game will ever sell well for EA. If you want the EA football game, you will go with either NCAA or Madden.
 
[quote name='Death2Sanity'][quote name='MorPhiend']It's no use. He's wrong and he knows it. He just wants to be a pain. Yuo know, one of those people who you tell the sky is blue and the grass is green and they argue the other way around.[/quote]

...that's a valid debate point how?

Everybody's entitled to their opinion.

It's just that, in the eyes of the law, there is a clear definition of what a monopoly is. If you think EA is violating antitrust laws and is a monopoly, try to take it to court. Explain how you consider owning player and team names which belong to a private group (the NFL/AFL), and try to understand when you get ignored.

EA is becoming troublesome in all these exclusive rights they're buying. I hate to see it happen. But they're not doing anything monopolistic in buying up league rights. Until they get some license that makes it such that they're the only ones able to make a football game, you're using the word 'monopoly' incorrectly. Insult EA all you want, but stick to 'corporate juggernaut' or whatever, because those are opinions. 'Monopoly' has a definition...and this is not it.[/quote]

See my above post. The only ones talking legally are the nay-sayers. The rest of us are just talking in terms of what's best for everyone (including EA - watch their sales plummet now more than ever).
 
[quote name='greendj27']I was just wondering about something. I have seen a lot of posters on this board who talk about how much they dislike sports gamens, but then complain that EA has the only NFL game. I understand it limits the choices available, but if you aren't buying an NFL game anyway, it really has no impact on you at all.

By the way, I doubt an Arena game will ever sell well for EA. If you want the EA football game, you will go with either NCAA or Madden.[/quote]

It does impact us. It impacts the whole industry. It is a trend that EA is involved with right now. Apparently you haven't heard about the forthcoming hostile takeover of Ubisoft.
 
[quote name='MorPhiend'][quote name='Death2Sanity']nope, sorry, it's more than 'somewhat' of a point. EA does not have a monopoly on football. They now own the rights to two leagues...but, that is the individual league's to do with as they please, it is not some commodity that all have a right to.

As far as the notion of the game of football is concerned, EA does not own the rights to that, otherwise it would be a monopoly in the business sense of the word.

Again, I'm not saying that what EA is doing is a good thing for the video game industry. I'm just saying that you're wrong to call it a monopoly in the business sense. There's a difference between being an 'evil monolithic corporate juggernaut' and being a monopoly.[/quote]

That's exactly the point that most are trying to make though. No one is saying that the DOJ is coming after EA. But they do have a "monopoly" on the NFL and AFL now. While yes, organizations have the right to license their likenesses to a single company, it doesn't make it the right thing to do / the best for the consumer / the best for the industry. No one says that there is necessarily an upcoming legal battle. People are just upset that a single company has decided to monopolize an aspect of a sport which they enjoy very much. And they have done it unfairly as well.

It would be one thing if the NFL had said, okay the highest bidder gets the rights to our likeness. But when EA saw some competition, they did an under-handed, behind closed doors deal, hurting all of their prospective customers in the process. That is not a good way to win customer loyalty.[/quote]

That makes sense, and I agree with it to a large part. But it's hardly underhanded, it's their right, and the NFL could have (and I suspect did) auction off to the highest bidder. I don't think it's good for football games in general, but it's not illegal. I'm not defending EA's image, I'm just trying to keep people from using monopoly incorrectly. They're not a business/legal monopoly, but in the other sense, yeah, they are the sole company able to use likenesses.

Again, feel free to get as upset as you want, that's perfectly understandable. Just don't lob incorrect accusations, as a lot of people are, you know?
 
[quote name='Death2Sanity']nope, sorry, it's more than 'somewhat' of a point. EA does not have a monopoly on football. They now own the rights to two leagues...but, that is the individual league's to do with as they please, it is not some commodity that all have a right to.

As far as the notion of the game of football is concerned, EA does not own the rights to that, otherwise it would be a monopoly in the business sense of the word.

Again, I'm not saying that what EA is doing is a good thing for the video game industry. I'm just saying that you're wrong to call it a monopoly in the business sense. There's a difference between being an 'evil monolithic corporate juggernaut' and being a monopoly.[/quote]

If it had somehow been a closed bidding process, monopoly talk might be more apt, but Sega had the same chance at the license EA did. It's no more a monopoly than NBC not having broadcast rights for the NFL, yet I don't see anyone bitching about how Fox and CBS are evil because of that.
 
[quote name='"Death2Sanity"'][quote name='MorPhiend'] 'Monopoly' has a definition...and this is not it.[/quote]

and here it is:

# [n] exclusive control or possession of something; "They have no monopoly on intelligence"
# [n] (economics) a market in which there are many buyers but only one seller; "a monopoly on silver"; "when you have a monopoly you can ask any price you like"
 
I don't know if this was brought up, but the NFL and the Player's Association are two different entities aren't they? By having the NFL rights you only get the rights to use the NFL team names but it doesn't mean you would get to have the rights to the players' name. You would need a license with the Player's association as well. So wouldn't other companies be able to use players' names and likenesses but without having official NFL teams or am I just way off base on this?
 
[quote name='dcfox']I don't know if this was brought up, but the NFL and the Player's Association are two different entities aren't they? By having the NFL rights you only get the rights to use the NFL team names but it doesn't mean you would get to have the rights to the players' name. You would need a license with the Player's association as well. So wouldn't other companies be able to use players' names and likenesses but without having official NFL teams or am I just way off base on this?[/quote]

EA got both.
 
[quote name='jetblac']I hope they realize NCAA is Next[/quote]

I don't see this being an issue now or in the future. NCAA player names as far as I know cannot be used in any game. Now the team name/mascot is debateable, but the NCAA is made up of conferences which introduces some more complex business issues.

However, I'm sure Oklahoma University would hop right on it though...
 
[quote name='"Mr.Answer"'][quote name='Death2Sanity'][quote name='MorPhiend'] 'Monopoly' has a definition...and this is not it.[/quote]

and here it is:

# [n] exclusive control or possession of something; "They have no monopoly on intelligence"
# [n] (economics) a market in which there are many buyers but only one seller; "a monopoly on silver"; "when you have a monopoly you can ask any price you like"[/quote]

You're not the first to do that, nice attempt at cleverness though. However, if you think you can learn economics from Webster's, you're fooling yourself.

I create a new and highly popular recipe. I sell that recipe to you. Should you be forced to share the secret with everybody? Because god knows, according to your definition, you have a monopoly on my recipe.
 
[quote name='"Mr.Answer"'][quote name='Death2Sanity'][quote name='MorPhiend'] 'Monopoly' has a definition...and this is not it.[/quote]

and here it is:

# [n] exclusive control or possession of something; "They have no monopoly on intelligence"
# [n] (economics) a market in which there are many buyers but only one seller; "a monopoly on silver"; "when you have a monopoly you can ask any price you like"[/quote]

Pwned
 
[quote name='MorPhiend']It would be one thing if the NFL had said, okay the highest bidder gets the rights to our likeness. But when EA saw some competition, they did an under-handed, behind closed doors deal, hurting all of their prospective customers in the process. That is not a good way to win customer loyalty.[/quote]

"We (EA) have proposed exclusivity several times in the past, but this year, in the spring the NFL had an off-site meeting, and they decided to consider bids for exclusivity," Brown told IGN in an exclusive interview. "Several bids were submitted but they accepted EA's. I cannot tell you how much this cost, but exclusivity is expensive, we are paying a premium. It wasn't cheap. I can tell you this, though, all parties all happy with this agreement, and Wall Street seems happy with it too."
 
[quote name='"Scrubking"'][quote name='Mr.Answer'][quote name='Death2Sanity'][quote name='MorPhiend'] 'Monopoly' has a definition...and this is not it.[/quote]

and here it is:

# [n] exclusive control or possession of something; "They have no monopoly on intelligence"
# [n] (economics) a market in which there are many buyers but only one seller; "a monopoly on silver"; "when you have a monopoly you can ask any price you like"[/quote]

Pwned[/quote]

Except that name and team licensing isn't comparable to a natural resource at all.
 
[quote name='"Mr.Answer"'][quote name='Death2Sanity'][quote name='MorPhiend'] 'Monopoly' has a definition...and this is not it.[/quote]

and here it is:

# [n] exclusive control or possession of something; "They have no monopoly on intelligence"
# [n] (economics) a market in which there are many buyers but only one seller; "a monopoly on silver"; "when you have a monopoly you can ask any price you like"[/quote]

Was that a real quote? I do not recall it and cannot find it... Just wondering...
 
[quote name='"Scrubking"'][quote name='Mr.Answer'][quote name='Death2Sanity'][quote name='MorPhiend'] 'Monopoly' has a definition...and this is not it.[/quote]

and here it is:

# [n] exclusive control or possession of something; "They have no monopoly on intelligence"
# [n] (economics) a market in which there are many buyers but only one seller; "a monopoly on silver"; "when you have a monopoly you can ask any price you like"[/quote]

Pwned[/quote]

Only by those who think I'm wrong. Which is their prerogative. However, I'm pretty sure I'm right myself...just as sure as you people are that I'm wrong.

Is it good for the industry? Probably not, but that's not guaranteed.

But until they start getting busted for their business practices, I believe that I'm perfectly accurate saying they're not a monopoly in the same sense as those who use the word incorrectly wish it to be. Sure, they have a monopoly on the NFL's commodity, but it's the NFL's to do with as they please, so it's not a business monopoly, and it's not a monopoly on football. You use the word monopoly, and people start getting all hot and bothered and cry for blood, when they have no legal right to do so.
 
What they did wasn't unfair nor was it underhanded, what is unfair is how you're painting the picture. ESPN knew they could do it far ahead aand the League placed it up for bids, hell it was something EA hand been probing at for years. Further more it's not ESPN, they whore they're name out to whoever will give them some profit and they have jackcrap to do with what football game gets made and how, it's Sega and Take-two along with Visual Concepts. Bottomline this is no different than Pepsi being the only softdrink to carry the official logo. Also, it's 5 years not forever quit pretending the world is going to end in those 5 years. I don't know if EA is doing evertyhing right, in fact they aren't but some of the crap being spewed out here is grossly in accurate. Also, if you all think that $20 price tag was going to stay on the Take-two games for more than a year or 2 your fooling yourselves. Personally I don't like all of EA's business practices, but this is one that was totally legal and fair IMO. They've been the leader in sports games of just about every kind of sport for a while now and the games are always pretty good despite what some claim so I'd much rather see them do an exclusive sports game then have some other big time game publisher like VU or something get the rights and make a mockery of a game.
 
but I've talked enough, and I'm repeating myself. Those who agree with me, do; and those who disagree with me, don't. More power to it, we need people who think differently.

Just don't butcher the semantics of the english language in the process, okay? There is business/legal sense, and then there is everyday usage.

(yeah, I'm an English major, how'd you guess?)

edit: apparently I'm an English major who can't spell. go figure.
 
[quote name='CrashSpyro123'][quote name='MorPhiend']It would be one thing if the NFL had said, okay the highest bidder gets the rights to our likeness. But when EA saw some competition, they did an under-handed, behind closed doors deal, hurting all of their prospective customers in the process. That is not a good way to win customer loyalty.[/quote]

"We (EA) have proposed exclusivity several times in the past, but this year, in the spring the NFL had an off-site meeting, and they decided to consider bids for exclusivity," Brown told IGN in an exclusive interview. "Several bids were submitted but they accepted EA's. I cannot tell you how much this cost, but exclusivity is expensive, we are paying a premium. It wasn't cheap. I can tell you this, though, all parties all happy with this agreement, and Wall Street seems happy with it too."[/quote]

Thanks Crash. I had heard it reported differently. But that only changes things a little. Especially when they say that all parties are happy. I'm sure Sega wasn't. I know the fans aren't. But I guess if the NFl really did auction it (without coersion), then someone would have had to gotten it. But it doesn't change the fact that EA is trying to buy up the whole gaming world. And did the same thing happen with the AFL? I doubt there was demand for an auction there...
 
It's not our fault you refuse to accept the basic definition of the word and only accept the most complex business definition.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']It's not our fault you refuse to accept the basic definition of the word and only accept the most complex business definition.[/quote]

Scrubking, I believe good gameplay AND story make great games, not just gameplay. I disagree with your sig, how can I ever expect to see eye-to-eye with you in this?
 
[quote name='CheapyD']Here is how I read it:

"We don't want any other game developers to be able to make any game that even resembles football," said Larry Probst, Chairman and CEO of EA.[/quote]

I guess the second post on this topic was the most accurate of all. I think other than that, both sides of opinion have some truth to them.
 
Does anyone here think an AFL game from any other publisher or developer would sell? NO, it wouldn't. So why should any of you care that EA has the rights? The only thing that would make an AFL game sell copies is an EA logo on the box, which it will now have. I am so tired of people crying about EA being a monopoly, they hold 2 licenses for a sport, big freaking deal, it's no different than THQ owning the Spiderman license. Do you think other developers would like to make a Spiderman game? SEGA and VC were NOT going to make an AFL game anyways, it would be a waste of development time and money.
 
I was thinking that also, is there really a market for an AFL game, I mean I like the AFL but not enough to plunk 50 bones on it, personally I would just add the teams and stadiums to Madden 06, but before i get my head removed I'm aware that the NFL would never allow that.
 
[quote name='"Scrubking"'][quote name='Mr.Answer'][quote name='Death2Sanity'][quote name='MorPhiend'] 'Monopoly' has a definition...and this is not it.[/quote]

and here it is:

# [n] exclusive control or possession of something; "They have no monopoly on intelligence"
# [n] (economics) a market in which there are many buyers but only one seller; "a monopoly on silver"; "when you have a monopoly you can ask any price you like"[/quote]

Pwned[/quote]

Wasnt' trying to 'pwn' anyone just cut and pasted from a dictionary sight. The word monopoly seemed to be being used so much and 'rightly' by many different people. It would seem with the definition of monopoly, yes EA does have a monopoly in that they have exclusive control over the NFL license. Also EA dosn't have a monopoly in that anyone can make a football game.

I was not trying to break down macro and micro economic theory into a two sentance dictionary quote, just adding some info into the 'debate stew'


Interestingly the #1 use of Monopoly is the board game.
 
Hmm, looks like Electronic Arts is making sure no one attempts to do any type of licensed football game, except them! My hatred for Electronic Arts just seems to grow and grow everyday!!!...
 
[quote name='Mr_hockey66']XFL! XFL! XFL

Wait what im I thinking! NO XFL! NO XFL![/quote]

Of course one could, if they really wanted an XFL fix, simply create a few players named ' hehateme'.
 
What is everybody complaining for? Who's really going to buy a AFL football game?

Would people rather have no AFL game then an AFL game made by EA?

Does anyone here think an AFL game from any other publisher or developer would sell? NO, it wouldn't. So why should any of you care that EA has the rights? The only thing that would make an AFL game sell copies is an EA logo on the box, which it will now have. I am so tired of people crying about EA being a monopoly, they hold 2 licenses for a sport, big freaking deal, it's no different than THQ owning the Spiderman license. Do you think other developers would like to make a Spiderman game? SEGA and VC were NOT going to make an AFL game anyways, it would be a waste of development time and money.
Click to expand...

Exaclty. People are just looking for another excuse to hate EA.
 
[quote name='Scahom1']What is everybody complaining for? Who's really going to buy a AFL football game?

Would people rather have no AFL game then an AFL game made by EA?

Does anyone here think an AFL game from any other publisher or developer would sell? NO, it wouldn't. So why should any of you care that EA has the rights? The only thing that would make an AFL game sell copies is an EA logo on the box, which it will now have. I am so tired of people crying about EA being a monopoly, they hold 2 licenses for a sport, big freaking deal, it's no different than THQ owning the Spiderman license. Do you think other developers would like to make a Spiderman game? SEGA and VC were NOT going to make an AFL game anyways, it would be a waste of development time and money.
Click to expand...

Exaclty. People are just looking for another excuse to hate EA.[/quote]

You're wrong, if Sega had made an AFL game I would have bought it over Madden in a heartbeat, EA want NO football game competition.
 
[quote name='Morrigan Lover']I wish Sega would reconsider making their sports games available on the 'cube.[/quote]

Ahh I thought I was the only one still clinging to that impossible dream... for 19.99 I'd snatch them up... but it's never gonna happen.
 
So much arguing.

OK, I can explain the whole thing legally. Before I do, keep in mind (1) I don't care for EA's games which, while not horrible, don't try to 'WOW' anyone (2) I don't even play football games.

Therefore, nothing I'm going to say is to appease either side. It's just information, and you can have at it.

Legally speaking, nobody can monopolize a licensee. To monopolize something, you must have complete control over an entire industry. NFL Video Games are not an industry unto themselves. Football Video Games aren't an industry unto themselves. Video games is the industry that EA is part of, not NFL video games. NFL is not an industry unto themselves, or even an industry. NFL, at it's base, is a privately owned professional sports league, in which members pay dues and collect royalties. The NFL licesnes it's likeness similar to the way Nintendo owns and licenses Mario. Sony can't sue Nintendo because they have monopolized Mario games. Nintendo owns Mario the same way the NFL owns the NFL.

The NFL can pick and choose it's licensees as it chooses. In the past, they've licensed to multiple companies. Now they've chosen to license only one, which is their legal right.

Again, I'm not trying to start a fight or bust anyone's bubble. I'm just giving it to you straight... nothing illegally unfair has happened. In my personal opinion, I am stunned that the NFL has done what they've done, but they made a decision and the gaming world has to live with it. By hook or crook, EA is the sole licensee of the NFL for several years.
 
[quote name='Survivor Charlie']So much arguing.

OK, I can explain the whole thing legally. Before I do, keep in mind (1) I don't care for EA's games which, while not horrible, don't try to 'WOW' anyone (2) I don't even play football games.

Therefore, nothing I'm going to say is to appease either side. It's just information, and you can have at it.

Legally speaking, nobody can monopolize a licensee. To monopolize something, you must have complete control over an entire industry. NFL Video Games are not an industry unto themselves. Football Video Games aren't an industry unto themselves. Video games is the industry that EA is part of, not NFL video games. NFL is not an industry unto themselves, or even an industry. NFL, at it's base, is a privately owned professional sports league, in which members pay dues and collect royalties. The NFL licesnes it's likeness similar to the way Nintendo owns and licenses Mario. Sony can't sue Nintendo because they have monopolized Mario games. Nintendo owns Mario the same way the NFL owns the NFL.

The NFL can pick and choose it's licensees as it chooses. In the past, they've licensed to multiple companies. Now they've chosen to license only one, which is their legal right.

Again, I'm not trying to start a fight or bust anyone's bubble. I'm just giving it to you straight... nothing illegally unfair has happened. In my personal opinion, I am stunned that the NFL has done what they've done, but they made a decision and the gaming world has to live with it. By hook or crook, EA is the sole licensee of the NFL for several years.[/quote]

In conculsion...EA sucks, but their purchase of the NFL rights was not a monoploy, quit bitchin'!
 
The Fark Headline (with the stupid tag):
Electronic Arts grabs exclusive rights to Arena Football League videogames. Next up: exclusive rights for Milwaukee YMCA Basketball and Warren G. Harding Middle School Hopscotch
 
[quote name='Scahom1']What is everybody complaining for?[/quote]people are complaining because they enjoy competition and choices, which EA is taking steps to limit.

Who's really going to buy a AFL football game?
Click to expand...
if its good, me. teams mean nothing to me, i dont even watch football, but i enjoy the video games.

Would people rather have no AFL game then an AFL game made by EA?
Click to expand...
sure, because if ea is making it im not buying anyways, so it pretty much dosent exist

People are just looking for another excuse to hate EA.
Click to expand...
people dont need another excuse there are more than enough reasons to not like their business practices.
 
[quote name='joeposh'][quote name='Morrigan Lover']I wish Sega would reconsider making their sports games available on the 'cube.[/quote]

Ahh I thought I was the only one still clinging to that impossible dream... for 19.99 I'd snatch them up... but it's never gonna happen.[/quote]

Yeah, I don't like sports games except soccer. But when I heard last summer that the 2k series was gonna be $19.99, I decided I was going to buy the games just so I could show support to some EA competition. But then I realized that Sega doesn't make Cube games...

[quote name='punqsux'][quote name='Scahom1']What is everybody complaining for? [/quote]
people are complaining because they enjoy competition and choices, which EA is taking steps to limit.

Who's really going to buy a AFL football game?
Click to expand...
if its good, me. teams mean nothing to me, i dont even watch football, but i enjoy the video games.

Would people rather have no AFL game then an AFL game made by EA?
Click to expand...
sure, because if ea is making it im not buying anyways, so it pretty much dosent exist

People are just looking for another excuse to hate EA.
Click to expand...
people dont need another excuse there are more than enough reasons to not like their business practices.[/quote]
My thoughts exactly.
 
[quote name='punqsux'][quote name='Scahom1']What is everybody complaining for?[/quote]people are complaining because they enjoy competition and choices, which EA is taking steps to limit.

Who's really going to buy a AFL football game?
Click to expand...
if its good, me. teams mean nothing to me, i dont even watch football, but i enjoy the video games.

Would people rather have no AFL game then an AFL game made by EA?
Click to expand...
sure, because if ea is making it im not buying anyways, so it pretty much dosent exist

People are just looking for another excuse to hate EA.
Click to expand...
people dont need another excuse there are more than enough reasons to not like their business practices.[/quote]

And there are more than enough people who will continue to buy the new Madden game regardless of how many CAGers bitch and moan.

I guess we should hate the Gamecube because Nintendo negociates exclusivity rights with developers for some games. And Sony too, oh yeah, and one more reason to hate M$ too. But EA is the only bad guy aren't they...(heavy-handed sarcasm).
 
[quote name='bmulligan'][quote name='punqsux'][quote name='Scahom1']What is everybody complaining for?[/quote]people are complaining because they enjoy competition and choices, which EA is taking steps to limit.

Who's really going to buy a AFL football game?
Click to expand...
if its good, me. teams mean nothing to me, i dont even watch football, but i enjoy the video games.

Would people rather have no AFL game then an AFL game made by EA?
Click to expand...
sure, because if ea is making it im not buying anyways, so it pretty much dosent exist

People are just looking for another excuse to hate EA.
Click to expand...
people dont need another excuse there are more than enough reasons to not like their business practices.[/quote]

And there are more than enough people who will continue to buy the new Madden game regardless of how many CAGers bitch and moan.

I guess we should hate the Gamecube because Nintendo negociates exclusivity rights with developers for some games. And Sony too, oh yeah, and one more reason to hate M$ too. But EA is the only bad guy aren't they...(heavy-handed sarcasm).[/quote]

Don't worry. There are already plenty of fanboys who already hate . No need to act like people don't hate any of those. And do a quick search on the internet. The whole gaming community (including people from the Nintendo/Sony/M$ fanboy camps) are upset over this as a whole. It's not just CAG. Sure, ma and pa or little Johnny might buy an EA title, but I wouldn't be surprised if EA sees a slemp in sales coming up.

EDIT: This is my 666th post! It's been three days since this thread came up. It can't be coincidence. I knew EA was evil!!!
 
You have to LOVE the quote from the AFL head when he says, "EA is the gold standard of the vieogame industry"

Eh?

Put down the pipe, buddy. EA is FAR from the gold standard. Nickle plated or cubic zirconia, maybe.

He's probably some 60-year-old fat cat that hasn't ever played/seen a videogame in his life!

I can see EA now linking some deal with the NCAA for the exclusive rights to college football next.

I hope they choke on their greed and this deal, like the NFL one, backfires and bankrupts the company.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top