EA and the NFL

[Gunbuster]

I heard the rumors, but I never thought it would go through

http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/a...991&newsLang=en

[Bloodcat]

They couldn't beat ESPN 2Kx properly so they went the scummy route.

To hell with EA...

[do not disturb]

i can't stand football, probably my least favorite sport next to bowling but i did buy my very first football game(madden05) a few weeks ago. i ain't got no skills, ain't got no game, don't know any of plays, i pretty much suck even with the best tea, but it sure is fun to play.

[JsARCLIGHT]

I'm a big football fan but I can't stand videogame football. This effects me in no way.

[Oihan]

Since there won't be any competition, we'll probably get crappier products from EA. Joy!

[Godzilla]

As much as I love Madden series, I am disappointed that EA had to go to the way that I most despise. I dont like NFL2K5 but those prices they placed would force EA to lower Madden prices. So what sport is next? Hockey? Basketball? I dont think that is a fair practice. Corporate greed... in the end only we the consumers lose.

[Britai 7018]

I think this is a horrible decision. Whether you like the product or not has anything to do with the fact that this creates a monopoly on the single consistent best-selling video game genre. (edit: In the U.S., I forget this site is international, oops)

Coincidently, a news site had this news announcement next to an announcement about how EA workers had a shirt that complained that they were not being paid for overtime.

EA, the Walmart of Video games.

Edited December 14, 2004 by Britai 7018

[Golden Arms]

This sux bigtime. I hope the other Football developers don't bow out. I fear that this lunacy will spread to the NBA. I gave up on the Madden series yrs ago. The game engine hasn't changed for yrs and the game physics are laughable. I prefer espn 2k series.

[yellowlightman]

EA is a horrible, horrible company so I'm not surprised.

But I don't play football videogames, so it doesn't affect me too much. But monopolies suck.

[fearyaks]

Every year I switch football games for fun... this year was ESPN, last year was Madden. This is a drag because ESPN was just getting better and Madden was starting to stagnate. What bums me out the most is that we'll have to go through EA's crap servers to play online now.

A total drag from a football gamers perspective... it screws Sega/VC and there is no longer a reason for Madden to improve on its game.

[mikeszekely]

I've had some gripes about EA, but this just takes the cake. I'm not really into football, but even I enjoyed ESPN NFL 2K5. Now it's like you will play Madden or you won't play football. And the thing that sucks the most is that the deal is for FIVE YEARS... just enough time that Madden will be the only NFL games on the next-gen consoles.

Well, here's boycotting Madden until EA, the NFL, and the NFLPA learn that you don't make money by screwing over your customers.

And in the meantime, here's looking forward to ESPN Arena Football 2K6 or ESPN EFL 2K6.

[VortexVFX]

Now I got a good reason to dislike EA.

I haven't played madden since 98' and now I find out these asses are trying to be the only one in the game. That's not fun.

I'm with the one who suggested we boycot EA.

This is as bad as the WWE being the only main draw to Wrestling.

[JB0]

What's all this about monopolies, and EA has killed the entire market for football games?

Am I the ONLY person that remembers the days of unlicensed sports games?

Just because you don't have XXX team's logo and Joe Blow's latest stats doesn't mean the game is any diffrent. In fact, they tended to be BETTER games because they were worried about making a good game, not one the licensor would approve of.

...

Of course, they also weren't relying on names, stats, and graphics to sell. They were TRYING to sell games based on good solid gameplay.

And at one point after licensing had taken over the sports game industry, unlicensed hockey games were considered superior to licensed ones because the NHL, in a brief attempt to clean up their image, forbade licensors to include fight sequences. In a subgenre where fight sequences were often more elaborate than the actual sport part of the game, this was a recipe for disaster.

They relented when it became obvious that people EXPECTED fight sequences in their hockey games, and wouldn't buy ones that didn't have them.

Fact: all this means is that next year's football games won't have "your" team's logo in there. Big deal, get over it. If it means that much to you, well, they'll almost GUARANTEED to include a logo designer anyways, so you can make your own logo, name your own team, and VOILA! You're playing as the Vice City MegaPimps or maybe even the boring old *insert REAL city/team here*.

[lt.actionjackson]

Ahh yes, yet another coporate Monopoly. It seems EA has been taking lessons from Microsoft.

[Panzer]

Madden sucked compared to ESPN, plays, graphics and price sucked big time.

[VortexVFX]

Let's hope Sega comes up with some good original teams then.

[Sundown]

EA evil. Yes. But has anyone thought of the other side of the coin? It takes two entities to do the contractual tango. And the NFL sold out and turned its back on their other licensecees, for what looks to them at this moment to be a better or at least quicker money grab.

-Al

[JsARCLIGHT]

I think all the football video game players should be mad at the NFL and not EA. Let's face it, if EA had not finegaled this deal someone else might have then you'd all be bashing X Game maker company. The NFL, much like MLB and NBA and NHL, have been gouging their fans in increasing levels for years. Remember back when you could go to a pro sporting event without dropping $50? And that is for the cheap seats. This is just the expected turn of events based on the current douche-baggery of professional sports. It's all about the money and the game comes second and the fans a distant third. What happens when they sign that new pro player in most sports? They raise the ticket price on you so the team keeps making the same amount of money... if not more. Need a new ballpark? Screw the fans and the city the team is in... if that doesn't work just move the team to some hard up for sports city that will whore itself out for you.

With any luck this will hurt the NFL more than it hurts EA... perhaps arena football will return, maybee even the XFL... something to just attempt to wrestle the monopoly away from the darn NFL. Major league sports have ruined themselves and everyone just keeps buying into it. Blame EA for taking the initiative but Blame Paul Tagliabue for this crap, not Lawrence F. Probst III.

[VortexVFX]

I think all the football video game players should be mad at the NFL and not EA. Let's face it, if EA had not finegaled this deal someone else might have then you'd all be bashing X Game maker company. The NFL, much like MLB and NBA and NHL, have been gouging their fans in increasing levels for years. Remember back when you could go to a pro sporting event without dropping $50? And that is for the cheap seats. This is just the expected turn of events based on the current douche-baggery of professional sports. It's all about the money and the game comes second and the fans a distant third. What happens when they sign that new pro player in most sports? They raise the ticket price on you so the team keeps making the same amount of money... if not more. Need a new ballpark? Screw the fans and the city the team is in... if that doesn't work just move the team to some hard up for sports city that will whore itself out for you.

With any luck this will hurt the NFL more than it hurts EA... perhaps arena football will return, maybee even the XFL... something to just attempt to wrestle the monopoly away from the darn NFL. Major league sports have ruined themselves and everyone just keeps buying into it. Blame EA for taking the initiative but Blame Paul Tagliabue for this crap, not Lawrence F. Probst III.

Point taken.

[JB0]

With any luck this will hurt the NFL more than it hurts EA...

I hope it curshes both.

...

But it won't hurt either, as the people they market to don't give a crap. They believe you should take it up the rear and ask for more.

And no, I don't just mean die-hard sports fans. Many many gamers believe that they have to roll over and accept whatever is offered to them, even when it is known to be a horrible product.

[Dangaioh]

wheeeee..... does this mean that the name madden... would be on the ESPN2K series???? knowing that Madden himself comments on ABC, and that it is owned by most part Disney, seeing that ESPN is also part of ABC???? who knows... Next Year we might just see EA Football 2K6 and ESPN Madden 2K6

[Druna Skass]

I don't give a crap about sports games, but seeing how Medal of Honor Rising Sun felt like step back from Frontline, I feel bad for you guys. EA certainly isn't the cream of the crop, I'd be pissed off too if the only FPSs I could play was made by them.

Edited December 14, 2004 by Druna Skass

[Dangaioh]

...EA certainly isn't the cream of the crop...

more like penecillin... aka... crop ravaged by mold and fungus.

[Valkyrie23]

Man this sucks for me, an avid football video gamer. Football video games

usually make up a third of my year playing video games. I always loved the classic genesis games, but then enjoyed the Sega NFL 2k series b/c they reminded me of those old games. Now I have no choice. I try Madden out every year and still prefer Sega. Plus, EA stated that this premium price they're paying for the liscense will be passed onto consumers. How about that? Paying even more for a game I don't like.

F*$( EA and the NFL. I'm a big NFL fan, yet this is a big stab at me....I'm boycotting EA games from now on. I guess more FPS's for me... or more basketball gaming

Edited December 14, 2004 by Valkyrie23

[Graham]

this creates a monopoly on the single consistent best-selling video game genre.

That statement is generalizing too much. It's only the best selling genre in the US market.

Here in Asia (and probably Europe as well) American football console games are about as popular as poo under a pillow (except with expat Americans that is) .

Graham

[fearyaks]

What's all this about monopolies, and EA has killed the entire market for football games?

Am I the ONLY person that remembers the days of unlicensed sports games?

Just because you don't have XXX team's logo and Joe Blow's latest stats doesn't mean the game is any diffrent. In fact, they tended to be BETTER games because they were worried about making a good game, not one the licensor would approve of.

...

Of course, they also weren't relying on names, stats, and graphics to sell. They were TRYING to sell games based on good solid gameplay.

And at one point after licensing had taken over the sports game industry, unlicensed hockey games were considered superior to licensed ones because the NHL, in a brief attempt to clean up their image, forbade licensors to include fight sequences. In a subgenre where fight sequences were often more elaborate than the actual sport part of the game, this was a recipe for disaster.

They relented when it became obvious that people EXPECTED fight sequences in their hockey games, and wouldn't buy ones that didn't have them.

Fact: all this means is that next year's football games won't have "your" team's logo in there. Big deal, get over it. If it means that much to you, well, they'll almost GUARANTEED to include a logo designer anyways, so you can make your own logo, name your own team, and VOILA! You're playing as the Vice City MegaPimps or maybe even the boring old *insert REAL city/team here*.

The problem is that we all remember the unlicensed games and with the exception of Cyberball, they were nothing compared to Tecmo Bowl and the earlier Maddens (with real players). It is a lot more fun playing as Favre or Owens, seeing their faces and hearing the commentators discuss them than playing as 'generic' #4 or 'generic' #81.

The thing that really sucks is that Visual Concepts was just getting the ball rolling with the casual gamers. Oh well, here's for another 5 years of mediocrity.

[The_Major]

[rant] i am not an avid sports game player, as i prefer when things blow up but in the past years all EA has suficed to do is piss me off with their craptacular games, the only games ive relly loved that had anything to do with EA was the Command & Conqure series, but nooo EA had to go and shoot westwood in the back of the head and then releas the crap fest that was Generals, the eventualu doing away with anything related to them (Earth and Beyond for one) then it was all down hill from there (and to be honest im shocked that EA hasnt done something to compleatly absorb Maxis) and now they pull this crap. But making decisions like this seems to be becoming the norm for game companies like Sierra destroying the homeworld franchise, and all these companies that are releasing poo-tasitc games simultaineously with Big Movies just to make an extra buck when the games play like crap but sold because the movie was popular. I dont want games based off of movies, i want quality games you can play with your friends or games that are their own movie like Metal Gear Solid so needless to say i hold verry few game companies in high reguard one being Digital illusions for noticing a group of people with talent and drive to create something (the desertCombat mod for Battlefield 1942) and hireing them to make more money by their product better not making more money by taking a chickenshit way out of having to own up to haveing as crap game [/rant]

sory for ranting like that but im sure that all i said ties in togeather and this kind of thing really gets to me because i do what i do, Yes i mod pre-existing games but when i do i treat the project as if i were creating a game from scratch to make a good fun thing for people to enjoy for free, minus the cost of the original game but still..... anyway thats my opinion on things.

poo poo and a half fart <-- i just now knowticed that there seems to be a language filter in place.....

Edited December 14, 2004 by The_Major

[mikeszekely]

What's all this about monopolies, and EA has killed the entire market for football games?

Am I the ONLY person that remembers the days of unlicensed sports games?

You can make the best, most fun football game ever, and you can have every major gaming magazine and internet site agree that it is so, and it will only sell a tiny fraction compared to the one with the license. This is because gamers might enjoy the flexability and creativity in a non-licensed game, but the majority of the football games seem to be bought buy people who's idea of channel surfing is going back and forth between ESPN and ESPN2 and who only buy sports games or even just football games. Even though I desperately hope Sega comes up with SOMETHING in place of their NFL games, lower sales will likely discourage them from doing that, and instead they'll most likely focus on what sports they do have licenses for (for now).

Besides, what's the best non-licensed sports series you can think of? Am I wrong to suggest Mutant League? I might as well point out now that Mutant League is one of EA's properties.

[mikeszekely]

EA evil. Yes. But has anyone thought of the other side of the coin? It takes two entities to do the contractual tango. And the NFL sold out and turned its back on their other licensecees, for what looks to them at this moment to be a better or at least quicker money grab.

-Al

I have. But there are simply too many NFL fans who care nothing for videogames. One can bitch and whine at whomever they like for this mess, but I'd hope to get something done, and realistically a boycott of the NFL seems unlikely. A boycott of EA, or more specifically, a boycott of the Madden franchise, is more plausible and more likely to get the message across to both sides.

[JB0]

What's all this about monopolies, and EA has killed the entire market for football games?

Am I the ONLY person that remembers the days of unlicensed sports games?

Just because you don't have XXX team's logo  and Joe Blow's latest stats doesn't mean the game is any diffrent. In fact, they tended to be BETTER games because they were worried about making a good game, not one the licensor would approve of.

...

Of course, they also weren't relying on names, stats, and graphics to sell. They were TRYING to sell games based on good solid gameplay.

And at one point after licensing had taken over the sports game industry, unlicensed hockey games were considered superior to licensed ones because the NHL, in a brief attempt to clean up their image, forbade licensors to include fight sequences. In a subgenre where fight sequences were often more elaborate than the actual sport part of the game, this was a recipe for disaster.

They relented when it became obvious that people EXPECTED fight sequences in their hockey games, and wouldn't buy ones that didn't have them.

Fact: all this means is that next year's football games won't have "your" team's logo in there. Big deal, get over it. If it means that much to you, well, they'll almost GUARANTEED to include a logo designer anyways, so you can make your own logo, name your own team, and VOILA! You're playing as the Vice City MegaPimps or maybe even the boring old *insert REAL city/team here*.

The problem is that we all remember the unlicensed games and with the exception of Cyberball, they were nothing compared to Tecmo Bowl and the earlier Maddens (with real players). It is a lot more fun playing as Favre or Owens, seeing their faces and hearing the commentators discuss them than playing as 'generic' #4 or 'generic' #81.

The thing that really sucks is that Visual Concepts was just getting the ball rolling with the casual gamers. Oh well, here's for another 5 years of mediocrity.

Didn't Tecmo Bowl only have team names, not player names?

[JB0]

What's all this about monopolies, and EA has killed the entire market for football games?

Am I the ONLY person that remembers the days of unlicensed sports games?

You can make the best, most fun football game ever, and you can have every major gaming magazine and internet site agree that it is so, and it will only sell a tiny fraction compared to the one with the license. This is because gamers might enjoy the flexability and creativity in a non-licensed game, but the majority of the football games seem to be bought buy people who's idea of channel surfing is going back and forth between ESPN and ESPN2 and who only buy sports games or even just football games. Even though I desperately hope Sega comes up with SOMETHING in place of their NFL games, lower sales will likely discourage them from doing that, and instead they'll most likely focus on what sports they do have licenses for (for now).

Besides, what's the best non-licensed sports series you can think of? Am I wrong to suggest Mutant League? I might as well point out now that Mutant League is one of EA's properties.

I was going to nominate Atari RealSports Football for the 5200, actually.

[mikeszekely]

What's all this about monopolies, and EA has killed the entire market for football games?

Am I the ONLY person that remembers the days of unlicensed sports games?

Just because you don't have XXX team's logo  and Joe Blow's latest stats doesn't mean the game is any diffrent. In fact, they tended to be BETTER games because they were worried about making a good game, not one the licensor would approve of.

...

Of course, they also weren't relying on names, stats, and graphics to sell. They were TRYING to sell games based on good solid gameplay.

And at one point after licensing had taken over the sports game industry, unlicensed hockey games were considered superior to licensed ones because the NHL, in a brief attempt to clean up their image, forbade licensors to include fight sequences. In a subgenre where fight sequences were often more elaborate than the actual sport part of the game, this was a recipe for disaster.

They relented when it became obvious that people EXPECTED fight sequences in their hockey games, and wouldn't buy ones that didn't have them.

Fact: all this means is that next year's football games won't have "your" team's logo in there. Big deal, get over it. If it means that much to you, well, they'll almost GUARANTEED to include a logo designer anyways, so you can make your own logo, name your own team, and VOILA! You're playing as the Vice City MegaPimps or maybe even the boring old *insert REAL city/team here*.

The problem is that we all remember the unlicensed games and with the exception of Cyberball, they were nothing compared to Tecmo Bowl and the earlier Maddens (with real players). It is a lot more fun playing as Favre or Owens, seeing their faces and hearing the commentators discuss them than playing as 'generic' #4 or 'generic' #81.

The thing that really sucks is that Visual Concepts was just getting the ball rolling with the casual gamers. Oh well, here's for another 5 years of mediocrity.

Didn't Tecmo Bowl only have team names, not player names?

Yes, they did... but as I understand, according to the licensing deal that EA made with the NFL, only EA gets players, stadiums, and TEAMS. So not even the Tecmo Bowl formula would fly now.

Well, if Sega and Take Two's deal is still good, maybe they can make a football game with all the teams named after their other franchises. And instead of an NFC and an AFC, you can have a Take Two conference and a Sega conference.

[JB0]

What's all this about monopolies, and EA has killed the entire market for football games?

Am I the ONLY person that remembers the days of unlicensed sports games?

Just because you don't have XXX team's logo  and Joe Blow's latest stats doesn't mean the game is any diffrent. In fact, they tended to be BETTER games because they were worried about making a good game, not one the licensor would approve of.

...

Of course, they also weren't relying on names, stats, and graphics to sell. They were TRYING to sell games based on good solid gameplay.

And at one point after licensing had taken over the sports game industry, unlicensed hockey games were considered superior to licensed ones because the NHL, in a brief attempt to clean up their image, forbade licensors to include fight sequences. In a subgenre where fight sequences were often more elaborate than the actual sport part of the game, this was a recipe for disaster.

They relented when it became obvious that people EXPECTED fight sequences in their hockey games, and wouldn't buy ones that didn't have them.

Fact: all this means is that next year's football games won't have "your" team's logo in there. Big deal, get over it. If it means that much to you, well, they'll almost GUARANTEED to include a logo designer anyways, so you can make your own logo, name your own team, and VOILA! You're playing as the Vice City MegaPimps or maybe even the boring old *insert REAL city/team here*.

The problem is that we all remember the unlicensed games and with the exception of Cyberball, they were nothing compared to Tecmo Bowl and the earlier Maddens (with real players). It is a lot more fun playing as Favre or Owens, seeing their faces and hearing the commentators discuss them than playing as 'generic' #4 or 'generic' #81.

The thing that really sucks is that Visual Concepts was just getting the ball rolling with the casual gamers. Oh well, here's for another 5 years of mediocrity.

Didn't Tecmo Bowl only have team names, not player names?

Yes, they did... but as I understand, according to the licensing deal that EA made with the NFL, only EA gets players, stadiums, and TEAMS. So not even the Tecmo Bowl formula would fly now.

I'm just saying, it's proof that real player names aren't needed, as that was insanely popular, and remains what many consider the definitive football game.

Well, if Sega and Take Two's deal is still good, maybe they can make a football game with all the teams named after their other franchises.  And instead of an NFC and an AFC, you can have a Take Two conference and a Sega conference.

Sounds good to me.

[fearyaks]

What's all this about monopolies, and EA has killed the entire market for football games?

Am I the ONLY person that remembers the days of unlicensed sports games?

Just because you don't have XXX team's logo  and Joe Blow's latest stats doesn't mean the game is any diffrent. In fact, they tended to be BETTER games because they were worried about making a good game, not one the licensor would approve of.

...

Of course, they also weren't relying on names, stats, and graphics to sell. They were TRYING to sell games based on good solid gameplay.

And at one point after licensing had taken over the sports game industry, unlicensed hockey games were considered superior to licensed ones because the NHL, in a brief attempt to clean up their image, forbade licensors to include fight sequences. In a subgenre where fight sequences were often more elaborate than the actual sport part of the game, this was a recipe for disaster.

They relented when it became obvious that people EXPECTED fight sequences in their hockey games, and wouldn't buy ones that didn't have them.

Fact: all this means is that next year's football games won't have "your" team's logo in there. Big deal, get over it. If it means that much to you, well, they'll almost GUARANTEED to include a logo designer anyways, so you can make your own logo, name your own team, and VOILA! You're playing as the Vice City MegaPimps or maybe even the boring old *insert REAL city/team here*.

The problem is that we all remember the unlicensed games and with the exception of Cyberball, they were nothing compared to Tecmo Bowl and the earlier Maddens (with real players). It is a lot more fun playing as Favre or Owens, seeing their faces and hearing the commentators discuss them than playing as 'generic' #4 or 'generic' #81.

The thing that really sucks is that Visual Concepts was just getting the ball rolling with the casual gamers. Oh well, here's for another 5 years of mediocrity.

Didn't Tecmo Bowl only have team names, not player names?

Yes, they did... but as I understand, according to the licensing deal that EA made with the NFL, only EA gets players, stadiums, and TEAMS. So not even the Tecmo Bowl formula would fly now.

I'm just saying, it's proof that real player names aren't needed, as that was insanely popular, and remains what many consider the definitive football game.

Well, if Sega and Take Two's deal is still good, maybe they can make a football game with all the teams named after their other franchises.  And instead of an NFC and an AFC, you can have a Take Two conference and a Sega conference.

Sounds good to me.

Well the Tecmo Bowl I played (perhaps it was Super Tecmo Bowl) on the NES had player names. Bo Jackson and Lawrence Taylor tore that game up.

Jerry Rice and Roger Craig weren't too bad either.

[JB0]

Maybe I'm getting the totally unlicensed and original Tecmo Bowl mixed up with the licensed Sequel, Tecmo Super Bowl.

...

Wait a second... just looked it up. NES Tecmo Bowl had real players, but not real teams. And Super Bowl had both(it apparently takes a license from the NFL to use teams, and a license from the NFL Player's Association to use players). Hence the confusion.

Adn the original arcade Tecmo Bowl game used neither.