Electronic Arts, ESPN hook up in exclusive 15-year deal

[MizzouRah]

http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/01/17/news_6116473.html

ESPN brand and programming to surface in EA sports titles on all platforms; deal is second blow to Sega Sports and Visual Concepts.
Electronic Arts broke the calm of a national holiday today by announcing a licensing deal of epic proportions. For the next fifteen years, EA will be the sole licensee of the ESPN brand in the area of sports games, which will include console, handheld, PC, and wireless games.


Games with leverage the ESPN brand will make their way to retail sometime during calendar year 2006, "upon the conclusion of ESPN’s existing video game licensing commitments."

The news is the second blow to current license-holder Sega (and its Visual Concepts development studio). It recently lost the right to publish sports games using the NFL license when EA scooped that license up. Now, it loses the right to the ESPN brand as well.

In a statement released just minutes ago, the world's largest game publisher said, "The relationship will include established EA SPORTS franchises--which will be enhanced by ESPN telecast, print and online content--as well as new sports games to be published by EA based on ESPN media properties."

The agreement is for fifteen years "with an option to terminate after ten years under certain conditions," the statement said. The agreement gives the publisher "exclusive first rights" to all ESPN content for simulation sports games.


By Curt Feldman -- GameSpot
POSTED: 01/17/05 12:05 PM PST


[i]Son of a ..... ??? Damn EA!

[Crapshoot]

Goddamnit- well, that's that. expect Madden to get a name change soon. Fvck!

[GrantDawg]

Wow! Who needs a competetive market place. Viva-la Monopoly!

[Chief Rum]

Can you say "antitrust suit"? The exclusive NFL contract was already pushing the envelope. I wouldn't be surprised if this pushed it over the edge.

CR

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Wonder how long before the Justice Department starts looking in to EA's activities.

[Arles]

Have to admit, I didn't anticipate that. Still, given EA already had the NFLPA, they certainly had the cash to bring in ESPN as well. Sega will have to focus more on customization I would guess, although they are certainly losing more and more marketing tools for sales. It's a bit of a bummer as I was more impressed with Sega than EA this past season - which is probably the reason for this move.

[Crapshoot]

Sega will quit- I would be shocked if they released anything.

[Calis]

Damn, that's gotta sting.

Doesn't really bother me though, I don't think the ESPN license brought a lot to the tables.

15 years though? Sheesh.

Don't think it'll hurt the other sports much, still anxious to see what the football game ends up like, very excited.

[Yossarian]

Sega Presents: Japanese Pro Football....

[Franklinnoble]

No reason why Madden has to change. ESPN/ABC/MNF are all under the same umbrella.

[Yossarian]

Madden's getting old...

Thats a lot of turducken for a guy his age to eat.....

[Crapshoot]

No reason why Madden has to change. ESPN/ABC/MNF are all under the same umbrella.

No, I mean the Madden name- its getting Expensive, and EA can now sell it as ESPN football - which has an even great product cache.

[Kodos]

Good god. EA really IS buying the world.

[Yossarian]

plus given that it now OWNS the market it could call the game "Football" and sell millions

[SirFozzie]

The other thing is.. this KILLIFYS the ESPN licenses for all the OTHER VC games (College and Pro Hoops, Baseball, and Hockey (although there likely wouldn't be another one this year anyway)..

EA is doing a complete hatchet job on Visual Concepts.

[Franklinnoble]

I think Sega needs to buy the Tecmo name, and then create an updated version of Tecmo Bowl with vintage USFL rosters.

Seriously, who wouldn't buy that?

[albionmoonlight]

I think Sega needs to buy the Tecmo name, and then create an updated version of Tecmo Bowl with vintage USFL rosters.

Seriously, who wouldn't buy that?
Young people. They have no taste.


I thought that EA vs. ESPN was a fair fight. Now it is just a walkover.

I think that EA should also get the exclusive rights to Dan Stevens and Peter O'Keefe, just to rub salt in the wound.

[GrantDawg]

I wonder at what point EA over-extends and goes broke? Probably a lot more than what they have spent so far, but you can wish.

[Maple Leafs]

No, I mean the Madden name- its getting Expensive, and EA can now sell it as ESPN football - which has an even great product cache.
No way. They might leverage the ESPN deal to get a better contract from Madden, but they keep the name.

Put it this way... if they dumped Madden, how long before Sega swoops in, signs the deal and releases Madden 2006?

[Franklinnoble]

I wonder at what point EA over-extends and goes broke? Probably a lot more than what they have spent so far, but you can wish.

Not going to happen.

EA has bigger annual revenue than you'd think.

[Crapshoot]

No way. They might leverage the ESPN deal to get a better contract from Madden, but they keep the name.

Put it this way... if they dumped Madden, how long before Sega swoops in, signs the deal and releases Madden 2006?

Without NFL Players ? Would anyone buy it ?

[jetpunk2000]

No way. They might leverage the ESPN deal to get a better contract from Madden, but they keep the name.

Put it this way... if they dumped Madden, how long before Sega swoops in, signs the deal and releases Madden 2006?

That's kinda a tough call, I think. On one hand, everyone knows EA and Madden go hand in hand. That being said, I don't think it hurts to have a fresh start. I mean ESPN is gonna be around much longer than Madden will. Plus it's not like ESPN isn't well known. The only problem may be from people who weren't into the Sega games. If you call it ESPN, you have to make sure you differentiate from that. But what about EA presents Monday Night Football. Something different.

[MizzouRah]

..and they say Bill Gates is bad...

This is really bad news, I guess console gaming is going to die.


Todd

[jetpunk2000]

..and they say Bill Gates is bad...

This is really bad news, I guess console gaming is going to die.


Todd

I don't think this one is as bad as the exclusive NFL license. That's the one that's going to be a killer.

[Maple Leafs]

Without NFL Players ? Would anyone buy it ?
Put out a game called Madden 2006 and I bet it makes millions, even if it's an empty box.

[jetpunk2000]

Put out a game called Madden 2006 and I bet it makes millions, even if it's an empty box.
You might get them once....mostly the people who haven't a clue about what has happened. But if it's garbage, or doesn't have teh player/team licenses, it probably won't last.

[Deattribution]

I wonder if any, or how much of this happens if VC doesn't cut prices to $19.99 on all there sports titles... They fired the first shot, problem is they under estimated who they were going against.

[Ironhead]

I just started playing Madden 2005 after refusing to play it this football season. I had a very sour taste in my mouth following NCAA Football on the Xbox and the NFL licensing deal. After having a moderately fun 34-30 win in the closing seconds of ATL-PHI I log onto the forums to find this news.

I feel like such a dirty you know what right now.

[SackAttack]

It's worth noting that Sega still has two more years with ESPN before this happens. That could allow them to keep the ESPN brand for those two years, but re-position their sports titles for life after ESPN in the meantime. Reduce their reliance on the ESPN gimmicks, or at least plant the seeds, feature-wise, of what's going to come after.

This is a blow for Sega, but it's not anywhere near the knockout blow that the exclusive NFL license was, because the NFL deal takes place immediately, but the ESPN deal has a built-in 2 year cushion. Sega gets to finish their contract, and EA takes over immediately thereafter.

[jbmagic]

just hope EA wakes up and makes Madden 2006 have online league like it did for Madden 2002

[Cringer]

In a statement released just minutes ago, the world's largest game publisher said, "The relationship will include established EA SPORTS franchises--which will be enhanced by ESPN telecast, print and online content--as well as new sports games to be published by EA based on ESPN media properties ."


ESPN Spelling Bee on PS2 and XBox coming in 2006!!!

[Ragone]

Espn Roller Derby!
Espn Lawn Mower Racing!
Espn Pool!
Espn World Series of Poker!

[Sharpieman]

Now EA has the incentive to make their game HORRIBLE and people will still buy it.

[SirFozzie]

That last one is entirely too possible, and hereby is stricken from the post above. Instead, we will provide new entries!

ESPN Dream Job!
ESPN Stump the Schwab
ESPN Throw Stuart Scott under the steamroller!


Errr.. did I say that last one aloud?

[SackAttack]

Foz, I tend to read that as meaning games based on things like Tilt and Playmakers, although the latter is out courtesy of Midway.

[Ragone]

ooh

Espn Butcher highlights with ghetto slang you don't understand!

Espn Nhl Lockout 2005!(now with exciting 1st person backroom negotitation)

Espn Nhl Not tonight!(why not 2 titles in one year, this one lets you watch dog shows and spelling bees that play in place of nhl games)

Espn Major Indoor Lacrosse 2005

[Joe]

this is great news!

[Cringer]

That last one is entirely too possible, and hereby is stricken from the post above. Instead, we will provide new entries!

ESPN Dream Job!
ESPN Stump the Schwab
ESPN Throw Stuart Scott under the steamroller!


Errr.. did I say that last one aloud?

ESPN Throw Stuart Scott under the steamroller! would be entirely too enjoyable, and hereby should be stricken from the post above. :D

[Yossarian]

what is Tilt?

[sooner333]

Sega really needs to now focus on their NBA game. First of all, NFL wasn't going to go anywhere. Yes, it is a great game...I own more of their titles than Madden titles for Xbox. The problem is, I wasn't representative of the public, and even when I try to promote the ESPN football game to my friends, they just shrug it off and buy Madden anyway. Their NBA game, on the other hand, is very good as well, but NBA Live doesn't quite have the market cornered already like Madden does. Also, they can still have the NBA licesnse with real players.

So, you get the TNT rights, and maybe make the game called whatever TNT calls their national broadcast night. You have the longest running TV partner of the NBA, not bad and a very recognizable name.

Sega then needs to do something with its college basketball game. This could be a big seller. Perhaps get the CBS marketing. Everyone knows the theme song, everyone loves the NCAA tournament. The CBS deal could be the best one out there of any sports title because of the huge correlation between the sport and that network (for the tournament).

Sega can also really make its baseball game pretty decent. MVP doesn't really have a huge market. However, they really need to change something otherwise I think this baseball title may go the way of High Heat.

I probably wouldn't spend much time developing a college football game, because of NCAA...but, if you really have to scrap NFL, you might as well try to convert the game to college in a sport where you might have a chance. CBS could sign on with the other college title. They would really need to make things different from EA, but they could do the things like they do in college hoops, like the dynasty mode where you start from a low level of schools. Also, maybe include some kind of high school gimmick or lower level schools.

In the end, Sega might really want to focus on the next-generation of consoles and make a really wowing impression when they come out. That would create a lot of hype and maybe propel them into better competition with EA.

[SackAttack]

Tilt is to poker as Playmakers was to football, I believe.

[Chief Rum]

ESPN Strongman!

I want to be Guntharr Sigurdmanssonshmekolicwhatever.... :D

CR

[SackAttack]

Attempt to Monopolize . Section 2 of the Sherman Act also prohibits attempts to monopolize by companies that do not possess monopoly power but engage in anticompetitive conduct designed to achieve it. To prove an attempt to monopolize, one must establish that the defendant had a specific intent to achieve monopoly; that it acted in an anticompetitive manner designed to injure its actual or potential competition; and that there was a dangerous probability that monopoly power would in fact be achieved. Since companies that actually possess monopoly power are an industrial rarity, most Section 2 litigation involves allegations of attempts to monopolize; and it is the "dangerous probability of success" element on which the resolution of most cases turns.

Somebody sent this to me via AIM. I wonder how much relevance that will ultimately have for Sega.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I can't see where monopoly comes into play at all here, the football niche or even the sports game niche is too narrow a definition to apply.

It's like claiming CBS has a monopoly on "daytime game shows where you attempt to guess the retail price of items".

[GrantDawg]

Somebody sent this to me via AIM. I wonder how much relevance that will ultimately have for Sega.
What I wonder is would "Football video Games" be to narrow a section of competetion to be considered a legal monopoly. Couldn't EA just agrue that SEGA has room in other sports game to compete against EA's football game? (Did that make any sense?).

[Crapshoot]

Well, I believe the anti-trust exemption (as seen with the TV rights negotiation and so forth) that the NFL has (MLB started it) is applicable here- they have chosen to band together, and have been permitted to do so by Congress. No chance here.

[SackAttack]

Well, I believe the anti-trust exemption (as seen with the TV rights negotiation and so forth) that the NFL has (MLB started it) is applicable here- they have chosen to band together, and have been permitted to do so by Congress. No chance here.

The thing is, I don't think Sega would be filing suit against the NFL for antitrust violation. If they filed suit, it would be against EA for anticompetitive behavior.

Does anybody really argue against the premise that EA "it acted in an anticompetitive manner designed to injure its actual or potential competition"?

Given the success of the Madden brand, how about "a dangerous probability that monopoly power would in fact be achieved"?

[Ragone]

ESPN Strongman!

I want to be Guntharr Sigurdmanssonshmekolicwhatever.... :D

CR

ooh.. i want magnus ver magnusson :)

[Chief Rum]

NFL may have blown their antitrust exemption by playing a game on Saturday early this season anyway.

But, no, Sega wouldn't be filing against the NFL, but EA.

And, Jon, I think a billion dollar industry, like the video football game industry, is big enough to be the focus of monopolistic legal requirements.

CR

[GrantDawg]

I can't see where monopoly comes into play at all here, the football niche or even the sports game niche is too narrow a definition to apply.

It's like claiming CBS has a monopoly on "daytime game shows where you attempt to guess the retail price of items".
That's funny. You answered what I asked about the time I asked it. Yeah, even though it seems big to us, I think they'd have to lock up the total video game market, or even the total sports video game market, not just the Pro football game subset of a subset of a subset.

[JonInMiddleGA]

And, Jon, I think a billion dollar industry, like the video football game industry, is big enough to be the focus of monopolistic legal requirements.

But not a niche (the NFL) within a niche (football) within a niche (sportsgames).
Besides, others can still produce a football game, others can still produce a pro-style football game, they just can't use the property of players & teams & the league to do it.

I'll say this much -- if the courts even bother to hear any suit on this case, then it's clearly time to revise the law or the courts or both, because it'll prove that they're bordering on ridiculous in their scope/jurisdiction.

[Chief Rum]

If the presence of players' names is such a desirable trait (and it sure seems to be a very primary factor), then all other professional American football video games will be made close to unsellable, or at least require a price drop that is large as to make them unprofitable to make.

We can play the niche within a niche game forever. Take Microsoft. They got tagged for monopolistic practices, even though they represent just operating software (as oppopsed to all software) on a subset of computers (PCs). What made it happen? The prevalence of PCs and the need for most PCs to have Windows to be compatible with most software in the world.

The prevalence of the view that a football game requires the feature of real teams and players to be a useable product could have the same effect.

CR

[sterlingice]

Somebody sent this to me via AIM. I wonder how much relevance that will ultimately have for Sega.
Unfortunately, that's unlikely as very few have judges/lawyers have been able to pin any companies on that lately. Hell, if they couldn't pin anything on Microsoft for leveraging the OS in the browser war which should have been a open and cut cast (tho, stopped mostly through politics and not law), what powerful company head is going to be hit by something like this?

SI

[mgadfly]

I took antitrust law in the fall and I'd agree with JoninMiddleGA that the defined market here is going to be either "entertainment" or "video game software" or who knows what, but a court is unlikely to find that "Video games based on the NFL" is the market for antitrust purposes.

It has been a couple of years since I took Sports Law, but I'm pretty sure the NFL doesn't have an antitrust exemption like baseball has. They won their case against the USFL but the holding wasn't because of an exemption, but instead was based on other factors. (As a side note, if the courts are reluctant to consider the NFL itself a monopoly, I doubt that NFL Video Games could be a market for Section 2 purposes).

[SackAttack]

In the larger realm of just "videogame software," then, you have other of EA's practices that haven't come into play. The Renderware purchase, for example. Renderware produces the middleware that many game developers use when they create games for PS2 and Xbox. That purchase gives EA leverage over the ability of those developers to create their games (or, at the very least, to do so profitably).

You have their recent purchase of Ubi Soft stock, with Ubi being one of the few, remaining "large" publishers around.

I don't know how much either of those would factor into such a decision, though.

Really, what I keep coming back to - and admittedly, I don't know the pertinent law as well as some of you do - is the clause about "it acted in an anticompetitive manner designed to injure its actual or potential competition." I don't think it's remotely arguable that this has happened. Whether it's enough to constitute antitrust violation is quite another matter, but I have to think that's the path Sega can and should pursue if they choose to take this fight to the courts.

[SackAttack]

(As a side note, if the courts are reluctant to consider the NFL itself a monopoly, I doubt that NFL Video Games could be a market for Section 2 purposes).

Again, if this goes to the courts, I don't think Sega will be pursuing this from the standpoint of "They're monopolizing NFL football games," but rather "EA is attempting to create a monopoly over the sports video game market," which is rather lucrative in its own right, even if only as a subset of videogames at large.

[SackAttack]

Dola,

Let's not forget the fact that EA bought the exclusive rights to the Arena Football League. You don't suppose that was to limit Sega's avenues as they try to find a new way to compete with EA, do you?

[SackAttack]

double dola,

And then there's the long-standing PGA Tour and NASCAR exclusive licenses...about the only sports they don't have some sort of exclusive licenses in are hockey (right now, does that matter?), collegiate sports, and NBA basketball.

[JonInMiddleGA]

double dola,

And then there's the long-standing PGA Tour and NASCAR exclusive licenses..

I'm quite possibly mistaken, but I thought the PGA licensing was largely on an individual basis (player-by-player) with regard to personal images & such. Basically all the PGA license (i.e. with the organization) covers is the use of their logo & name, but the golfers themselves have retained their personal image rights (or at least had until recently if this is no longer the case).

This subject came up pretty recently with regard to licensing for tabletop gaming purposes & the consensus was pretty unanimous, including input from at least a couple of people who have dealt with this specific issue directly.

[Ragone]

Ea sports presents espn nfl sunday night football :)

[SackAttack]

I'm quite possibly mistaken, but I thought the PGA licensing was largely on an individual basis (player-by-player) with regard to personal images & such. Basically all the PGA license (i.e. with the organization) covers is the use of their logo & name, but the golfers themselves have retained their personal image rights (or at least had until recently if this is no longer the case).

You're right about that much. I used "PGA Tour" as a catch-all for the fact that certain prominent golfers are exclusive to EA, as are certain courses, such as Pebble Beach. It's not all-inclusive, but there is some exclusivity to EA in the golf world - although outside of the recently-sold Links franchise, they don't have much competition in that sport to begin with.

[Ragone]

You're right about that much. I used "PGA Tour" as a catch-all for the fact that certain prominent golfers are exclusive to EA, as are certain courses, such as Pebble Beach. It's not all-inclusive, but there is some exclusivity to EA in the golf world - although outside of the recently-sold Links franchise, they don't have much competition in that sport to begin with.

I wonder if cyberwomen golfers can play at cyberaugusta?

regardless, i'd buy a good golf sim if it didn't have pga players.. not like you really see them anywhere other then a leaderboard anyway

[SackAttack]

I wonder if cyberwomen golfers can play at cyberaugusta?

regardless, i'd buy a good golf sim if it didn't have pga players.. not like you really see them anywhere other then a leaderboard anyway

Did you buy the Sierra golf game on PC back in the day? Fantastic game, didn't use real players, but it had real golf courses, plus a golf course editor that allowed those with skills in such things to create some of the "exclusive" courses such as Augusta National and Pebble Beach for use with the Sierra title.

[Ragone]

Did you buy the Sierra golf game on PC back in the day? Fantastic game, didn't use real players, but it had real golf courses, plus a golf course editor that allowed those with skills in such things to create some of the "exclusive" courses such as Augusta National and Pebble Beach for use with the Sierra title.

You mean Pga Championship? yea.. that was a good game..

[SackAttack]

Yeah, it was. Sierra stopped releasing new courses and such for it mostly because it wasn't selling. People were saying "OMG that game has Tiger Woods it must be better!!1!" and buying the inferior Tiger Woods PC game. This was on the heels of the demise of the Front Page Sports series. 'Bout a year and a half of that, combined with the loss of the NASCAR license, and Sierra said "Screw it, we're done with sports games entirely."

[finkenst]

I took antitrust law in the fall and I'd agree with JoninMiddleGA that the defined market here is going to be either "entertainment" or "video game software" or who knows what, but a court is unlikely to find that "Video games based on the NFL" is the market for antitrust purposes.

It has been a couple of years since I took Sports Law, but I'm pretty sure the NFL doesn't have an antitrust exemption like baseball has. They won their case against the USFL but the holding wasn't because of an exemption, but instead was based on other factors. (As a side note, if the courts are reluctant to consider the NFL itself a monopoly, I doubt that NFL Video Games could be a market for Section 2 purposes).
actually, the USFL won the case and the jury awarded $1 by the jury IIRC

[Bubba Wheels]

actually, the USFL won the case and the jury awarded $1 by the jury IIRC

Damages were then 'trebled."

[Ragone]

i dunno.. but after seeing pictures of ea sports madden 2007 for the next gen console.. i'm sold..

hxxp://www.ps3portal.com/Images/ea_screenshot_2.jpg

[Eaglesfan27]

i dunno.. but after seeing pictures of ea sports madden 2007 for the next gen console.. i'm sold..

hxxp://www.ps3portal.com/Images/ea_screenshot_2.jpg

I've seen that picture before. If the game continues to improve in graphics and the play continues to improve in quality (I think Madden has improved quite a bit in the last 5 years), I will buy this game despite my thoughts about their business practice. I wonder how many people will boycott the Madden series because of their dissatisfaction with EA's business practices. I'd like to think that I would, but I know I won't if the game continues to improve.

[mgadfly]

actually, the USFL won the case and the jury awarded $1 by the jury IIRC


Yeah, I meant "won" in a more general sense of the term.

[Ragone]

Its silly to boycott anything like that.. its not like we have an alternative at this point.. for console football action.. besides.. the espn liscense will improve ncaa football dramatically..

Imagine a pregame show with corso putting on the mascot head

[mgadfly]

Dola,

Let's not forget the fact that EA bought the exclusive rights to the Arena Football League. You don't suppose that was to limit Sega's avenues as they try to find a new way to compete with EA, do you?

... The next post says it better than I did.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I took antitrust law in the fall and I'd agree with JoninMiddleGA that the defined market here is going to be either "entertainment" or "video game software" or who knows what, but a court is unlikely to find that "Video games based on the NFL" is the market for antitrust purposes.

It has been a couple of years since I took Sports Law, but I'm pretty sure the NFL doesn't have an antitrust exemption like baseball has. They won their case against the USFL but the holding wasn't because of an exemption, but instead was based on other factors. (As a side note, if the courts are reluctant to consider the NFL itself a monopoly, I doubt that NFL Video Games could be a market for Section 2 purposes).
I'm an antitrust lawyer (been so for 4 years now) and you're right as far as market definition goes. It would likely be broader than NFL video games. If this were Europe, that could change.

But things get trickeir, because if some was to file an antitrust complaint be it Sega or the DOJ/FTC, they would have to go after both the NFL and EA, because any negative judgment would have implications on the NFL's right to grant exclusive use of its product. The NFL has invested millions in developing, promoting, and creating a valuable product. Based on a free market approach, the NFL should be able to do what it wants with its intellectual property. If they want to grant exclusive licensing to EA or Sega or whomever, they should. Given this is an IP situation, I don't think any antitrust complaint would get that far at all.

[Craptacular]

Did you buy the Sierra golf game on PC back in the day? Fantastic game, didn't use real players, but it had real golf courses, plus a golf course editor that allowed those with skills in such things to create some of the "exclusive" courses such as Augusta National and Pebble Beach for use with the Sierra title.
The Jack Nicklaus series was the pioneer in course design. I actually made one of the first sites on the web that offered JNSE courses for download. I believe Maxis took the next shot with SimGolf (not the newer Sid Meier one), then came PGA. I remember how excited I was to get great JNSE courses from guys like Scott Chesney, Steve Opfer, Brent Blackburn, Brian Silvernail, and many others, many of whom now make courses for the TW series. I never was any good at making courses, but I loved to play the ones that others made.

[SackAttack]

I'm an antitrust lawyer (been so for 4 years now) and you're right as far as market definition goes. It would likely be broader than NFL video games. If this were Europe, that could change.

But things get trickeir, because if some was to file an antitrust complaint be it Sega or the DOJ/FTC, they would have to go after both the NFL and EA, because any negative judgment would have implications on the NFL's right to grant exclusive use of its product. The NFL has invested millions in developing, promoting, and creating a valuable product. Based on a free market approach, the NFL should be able to do what it wants with its intellectual property. If they want to grant exclusive licensing to EA or Sega or whomever, they should. Given this is an IP situation, I don't think any antitrust complaint would get that far at all.

I don't think Sega would have gone to court over the NFL's right to grant exclusivity for its IP, though. It's the fact that EA's last three moves seem to have been pretty squarely targeted at reducing (or entirely eliminating) Sega's ability to compete with EA that I'd be challenging. They went out and bought the exclusive rights to the NFL, they went out and secured a 15-year agreement with the purveyor of Sega's current brand (for ALL of their sports titles. It's a shot at reducing Sega's visibility in the marketplace), and they went out and secured the exclusive rights to the main "competitor" to the NFL to keep Sega from being able to effectively compete. It isn't that any one of these actions is inherently wrong. It's that the combination of the three points towards one pretty clear goal for EA.

Why couldn't Sega challenge those actions without challenging the NFL's right to license their IP how they see fit?

[Chief Rum]

I don't think Sega would have gone to court over the NFL's right to grant exclusivity for its IP, though. It's the fact that EA's last three moves seem to have been pretty squarely targeted at reducing (or entirely eliminating) Sega's ability to compete with EA that I'd be challenging. They went out and bought the exclusive rights to the NFL, they went out and secured a 15-year agreement with the purveyor of Sega's current brand (for ALL of their sports titles. It's a shot at reducing Sega's visibility in the marketplace), and they went out and secured the exclusive rights to the main "competitor" to the NFL to keep Sega from being able to effectively compete. It isn't that any one of these actions is inherently wrong. It's that the combination of the three points towards one pretty clear goal for EA.

Why couldn't Sega challenge those actions without challenging the NFL's right to license their IP how they see fit?

Personally, what I don't understand is why Section 2 requires such a broad definition of the industry.

I mean, EA won't need to control the entire software industry now to jack up the prices on their football games, which is exactly what they will do. On top of that, there's little accountability now or motivation to improve if the market is cornered. All they have to do is do what they did with FOF--release an update with a player name file, and they will sell cajillions.

To my mind, this is the very definition of a monopoly. Unfortunately, the lawyers have gotten a hold of this one and screwed it all up.

I am perhaps paranoid, but I see this move as one that will stagnate the video football game market and perhaps eventually kill it.

CR

[Solecismic]

I'm an antitrust lawyer (been so for 4 years now) and you're right as far as market definition goes. It would likely be broader than NFL video games. If this were Europe, that could change.

But things get trickeir, because if some was to file an antitrust complaint be it Sega or the DOJ/FTC, they would have to go after both the NFL and EA, because any negative judgment would have implications on the NFL's right to grant exclusive use of its product. The NFL has invested millions in developing, promoting, and creating a valuable product. Based on a free market approach, the NFL should be able to do what it wants with its intellectual property. If they want to grant exclusive licensing to EA or Sega or whomever, they should. Given this is an IP situation, I don't think any antitrust complaint would get that far at all.

My take on the situation is that the NFL situation is very different from the NFLPA situation. Team logos, nicknames? No question the NFL and EA can agree to do whatever they want. But the players? You can't copywrite a name.

HB, have you come across the Lanham Act? Wouldn't you think a challenge to the NFLPA would be a slam dunk for any game developer who was careful to claim no player endorsements?

Adding... one of my college majors is in economics. It takes quite an imagination to believe anti-trust law is enforced in any useful way whatsoever in today's economy.

[Abe Sargent]

Lots of dealers and companies sign exclusive contracts - so that's nothing new. Exclusive contracts for beverages, uniforms, credit cards, etc. There is no reason to believe that sports games are any different, legally.

In fact, in the wake of the NFL-EA contract, if I were Sega, the first thing I'd so is renew my ESPN contract ASAP. They were free to negotiate with ESPN immediately. If they were slow on the uptake, or if EA offered more money, then Sega lost out on a legitmate free enterprise solution - they can't cry now.

Now, if Sega were to challenge that players in the NFL are not available for exclusive rights bargaining by the NFl or the NFLPA and that any game should be able to use their likeness since they are public figures, that seems different.

A football games has to get a license to use Barry Bonds' name, but a political sim doesn't need that same license for Bill Clinton? That seems wrong, and a double standard.

-Anxiety

[Chief Rum]

That does seem kind of odd. How come politicians fall under the category of public figures, but athletes who get almost as much mention in thye media don't?

CR

[Honolulu_Blue]

I don't think Sega would have gone to court over the NFL's right to grant exclusivity for its IP, though. It's the fact that EA's last three moves seem to have been pretty squarely targeted at reducing (or entirely eliminating) Sega's ability to compete with EA that I'd be challenging. They went out and bought the exclusive rights to the NFL, they went out and secured a 15-year agreement with the purveyor of Sega's current brand (for ALL of their sports titles. It's a shot at reducing Sega's visibility in the marketplace), and they went out and secured the exclusive rights to the main "competitor" to the NFL to keep Sega from being able to effectively compete. It isn't that any one of these actions is inherently wrong. It's that the combination of the three points towards one pretty clear goal for EA.

Why couldn't Sega challenge those actions without challenging the NFL's right to license their IP how they see fit?
Hmmm... I guess you could look at the effect of all three agreements: (1) NFL exlcusive licensing; (2) Arena Football; and (3) the ESPN deal, have together, arguing that the EA's already strong market position together with the combined effect of the three exclusive arrangements is an attempted monopoly by EA sports in the market for football video games or some such. That way you aren't saying that any one agreement is illegal, but it's the combination of all three in concert that's the problem.

Still would be very tough. It would be hard to argue that the ESPN agreement is all that important. There are at least two other viable sports personality bases available to competitors (Fox/CBS). The arena league deal is pretty much insignificant for all intents and purposes.

If I have some time tomorrow at work, I'll take a deeper look into some of this and report back.

[MizzouRah]

I've seen that picture before. If the game continues to improve in graphics and the play continues to improve in quality (I think Madden has improved quite a bit in the last 5 years), I will buy this game despite my thoughts about their business practice. I wonder how many people will boycott the Madden series because of their dissatisfaction with EA's business practices. I'd like to think that I would, but I know I won't if the game continues to improve.

A boycott will last about as long as it takes for someone to post, "I just bought Madden 2006 and damn! the game is sweet!". :D

I'll get it if it continues to improve and with the licenses they now have, I would have to think they will. I do think this opens up more business for Jim as some hardcore anti-EA players will look elsewhere for a football fix.


Todd

[Chief Rum]

A boycott will last about as long as it takes for someone to post, "I just bought Madden 2006 and damn! the game is sweet!". :D

I'll get it if it continues to improve and with the licenses they now have, I would have to think they will. I do think this opens up more business for Jim as some hardcore anti-EA players will look elsewhere for a football fix.


Todd

But what motivation do they have to actually improve the product?

CR

[Honolulu_Blue]

My take on the situation is that the NFL situation is very different from the NFLPA situation. Team logos, nicknames? No question the NFL and EA can agree to do whatever they want. But the players? You can't copywrite a name.

HB, have you come across the Lanham Act? Wouldn't you think a challenge to the NFLPA would be a slam dunk for any game developer who was careful to claim no player endorsements?

Adding... one of my college majors is in economics. It takes quite an imagination to believe anti-trust law is enforced in any useful way whatsoever in today's economy.
Jim, haven't come across the Latham Act thus far as in my practice, but a lot of that could be due to the fact that 3 of my 4 years were spent doing EU competition law.

As for how antitrust law is enforced today... I couldn't agree more, which is one of the reasons I'm in the private sector at the moment and not the government. Though antitrust laws do work well when it comes to international cartels and Sherman Act Section 1 type violations, the hardcore stuff -- price fixing, market allocation, etc. Section 2, the monopoly stuff, is a might bit trickier.

[MizzouRah]

But what motivation do they have to actually improve the product?

CR

That's a good question, but I imagine all the good programmers will seek employment with EA now. I also think EA wouldn't want a crappy product now that they are under the microscope more so than ever.

I could be wrong, that's for sure. I just don't think EA execs want their flagship product getting lambasted.


Todd

[Chief Rum]

I'm just looking at it from a straight numbers sense, which is usually how big business operates.

They won't care if they put out a crappy product if everyone still buys it. It would have to atrociously bad for fans to choose not having a video football game at all over owning it. What that means is that EA will do just enough to keep people coming back--which I think means they will update the rosters and make just very minor changes. The only new development will come when new consoles come out, requiring EA to make the game for the new platform.

If their sales will be the same whether they put a lot of money and effort into it, or if they half ass it, they will choose the half ass effort, because that will increase their earnings statements.

At least with the ESPN series around, they had to stay on top of the competition to maintain market share and sales.

CR

[MizzouRah]

I'm just looking at it from a straight numbers sense, which is usually how big business operates.

They won't care if they put out a crappy product if everyone still buys it. It would have to atrociously bad for fans to choose not having a video football game at all over owning it. What that means is that EA will do just enough to keep people coming back--which I think means they will update the rosters and make just very minor changes. The only new development will come when new consoles come out, requiring EA to make the game for the new platform.

If their sales will be the same whether they put a lot of money and effort into it, or if they half ass it, they will choose the half ass effort, because that will increase their earnings statements.

CR

There's no doubt they'll make money, I don't have any reservations about that. It's been happening for X number of years. I just hope they take advantage of what they now have sitting in front of them. Either way, I'll continue to spend most of my time playing FOF and TCY. I just like playing online with Madden and ESPN mostly.

It'll be an interesting season for Madden and I can't wait to see exactly what they plan on doing for 2006. The bad thing is, if Microsoft, Sony, or Nintendo piss them off.. I wonder if they'll threaten to take Madden off of their respective platform?


Todd

[Abe Sargent]

But what motivation do they have to actually improve the product?

CR


First of all, assuming that the doom and gloom scenario is correct and no major competetior emerges, they have to compete against themself.

If your game is essentially the same as last year's, what incentive will there be for the consumer to buy it?

Secondly, there are other football titles to spend money on. If Madden ESPN NFL EA Football is unworthy, why not buy a college football game?

And lastly, putting out a shallow product is an invitation to competiting companies to challenge the dominance of the market.

However, I doubt the D&G scenario will occur. Simply because the announcers will be ESPN people with Madden in the title and real player names does not mean there will not be a legitimate competitor. There will be such a competitor, games that rely on great gameplay instead of branding.

-Anxiety

[SackAttack]

In fact, in the wake of the NFL-EA contract, if I were Sega, the first thing I'd so is renew my ESPN contract ASAP. They were free to negotiate with ESPN immediately. If they were slow on the uptake, or if EA offered more money, then Sega lost out on a legitmate free enterprise solution - they can't cry now.

It just strikes me as strange that EA is allowed to negotiate with a party currently under contract (in this case, ESPN). The Yankees can't go out and offer Dontrelle Willis a contract while he's still contractually tied to the Marlins. Why is it that corporate law differs enough to allow EA to do essentially the same thing?

[SackAttack]

Hmmm... I guess you could look at the effect of all three agreements: (1) NFL exlcusive licensing; (2) Arena Football; and (3) the ESPN deal, have together, arguing that the EA's already strong market position together with the combined effect of the three exclusive arrangements is an attempted monopoly by EA sports in the market for football video games or some such. That way you aren't saying that any one agreement is illegal, but it's the combination of all three in concert that's the problem.

Still would be very tough. It would be hard to argue that the ESPN agreement is all that important. There are at least two other viable sports personality bases available to competitors (Fox/CBS). The arena league deal is pretty much insignificant for all intents and purposes.

If I have some time tomorrow at work, I'll take a deeper look into some of this and report back.

That's what I'm saying. Any individual aspect of the deal would be hard to challenge from a monpolistic standpoint. Securing exclusive NFL rights AND securing exclusive ESPN rights (for 15 years. That's 3 generations of consoles, do you realize that?) AND securing exclusive rights to a "competing" football league...you could make a pretty compelling case that what EA is doing is aimed squarely at removing Sega's ability to compete.

Whether it's enough to stand up to anti-monopoly scrutiny is another matter, but it's certainly something they could challenge on, I should think.

[SackAttack]

It'll be an interesting season for Madden and I can't wait to see exactly what they plan on doing for 2006. The bad thing is, if Microsoft, Sony, or Nintendo piss them off.. I wonder if they'll threaten to take Madden off of their respective platform?

In other words, what happened to Dreamcast, right? The hell of it is, something like THAT wouldn't be challengeable. That's EA's business decision not to make their product available for a specific platform. But it could be every bit as injurious and monopoly-inducing (for their "favored" company) as the NFL/AFL/ESPN business is.

[Chief Rum]

First of all, assuming that the doom and gloom scenario is correct and no major competetior emerges, they have to compete against themself.

If your game is essentially the same as last year's, what incentive will there be for the consumer to buy it?

Secondly, there are other football titles to spend money on. If Madden ESPN NFL EA Football is unworthy, why not buy a college football game?

And lastly, putting out a shallow product is an invitation to competiting companies to challenge the dominance of the market.

However, I doubt the D&G scenario will occur. Simply because the announcers will be ESPN people with Madden in the title and real player names does not mean there will not be a legitimate competitor. There will be such a competitor, games that rely on great gameplay instead of branding.

-Anxiety

What competition will be able to compete with EA on an NFL football game without the NFL or the players?

People seeking the NFL experience will only have one option. Sure, some football fans will turn to just college football (which is also strongly dominated by EA), and some will turn to sim games like Jim's or use downloaded user-made rosters in other games. But the casual fan is unlikely to do this--they will only seek out the simplest, easiest option, which is to buy the game with the league they want modelled, and with which they can just open the box and play.

Given that huge advantage, I don't think EA will be legitimately challenged in the video pro football game arena for the length of this contract.

EA will judge from sales what "just enough" is to get by. If their marketing reserach shows that updated rosters alone are enough to get the same sales, that is what they will do. The only way they improve the game is if the increased costs of the changes translates into significantly more and low risk profit than "just enough".

As long as the average football fan views the presence of the NFL and its players as important--and I believe they do--it will be pretty much impossible for other companies to hedge in on this market without the rights to that league or its players, so EA can get by with a shallow product if the buyers are still buying.

CR

[Chief Rum]

Keep in mind that offering up just a roster update is EXACTLY what EA chose to do in a similar situation with FOF.

CR

[Noop]

Fuck EA.

[Arles]

That does seem kind of odd. How come politicians fall under the category of public figures, but athletes who get almost as much mention in thye media don't?

CR
I think it's because there are rules that garner how politicians can use their likeness. Because they serve the public, their likeness is also a public asset. That's why you don't see John McCain acting like Randy Johnson and speaking in TV ads for a car dealer. Again, I'm not sure on the specifics, but I think they are treated differently from a legal standpoint.

[mgadfly]

That's what I'm saying. Any individual aspect of the deal would be hard to challenge from a monpolistic standpoint. Securing exclusive NFL rights AND securing exclusive ESPN rights (for 15 years. That's 3 generations of consoles, do you realize that?) AND securing exclusive rights to a "competing" football league...you could make a pretty compelling case that what EA is doing is aimed squarely at removing Sega's ability to compete.

Whether it's enough to stand up to anti-monopoly scrutiny is another matter, but it's certainly something they could challenge on, I should think.

Any competitive action in the free market is aimed, in part, at driving your competitors out of business. EA doesn't have a monopoly because the "market" is going to be defined too broadly. EA hasn't done anything violating Section 2 because the goals of all those moves are to make their product stronger, not destroy Sega (and Sega won't be destroyed by it as they'll still be able to make video games, and even a football game).

If I was the judge I'd probably consider Sega's price-point of 19.99 an action aimed at harming the competition just as much as EA's purchasing of the license.

I think what EA has done sucks, but it isn't illegal.

[SackAttack]

the $19.99 price point wasn't meant to drive Madden out of the market, but rather to keep Sega IN it. Competing on quality and features didn't get them anywhere for a number of years, which left only price as a method for them to compete. And it worked. EA did well with Madden, but not as well as they would have preferred - which is what triggered their own price cut.

EA, on the other hand, have taken direct steps to destroy Sega's ability to compete in the realm of sports (and particularly football). They've secured the NFL license exclusively, preventing Sega from putting a product on the field that directly competes with EA. They've secured the ESPN license for 15 years following the cessation of Sega's existing product, which effectively destroys Sega's brand and forces them to come up with something new. And they've secured the AFL license to prevent Sega (and others) from putting an alternative product on the field that might be recognizable in any way.

Are you honestly going to tell me that it's more predatory for Sega to do what they need to in order to put more solid footing under a struggling franchise than for EA to do what they did in order to remove the competition for their flagship product?

[ISiddiqui]

And btw, the "market" is defined so broadly, because that is what the Sherman Act is designed to deal with. Specific markets will be naturally monopolized when a new company comes out with something new. Think of digital MP3 players and the iPod. They had a monopoly on the market, because it was something new. The Sherman Act doesn't want to unwittingly crack down on that. The thing it looks for is the broader market, where anti-competitive actions are more harmful.

In the end, any anti-trust action against EA will never work.

[mgadfly]

the $19.99 price point wasn't meant to drive Madden out of the market, but rather to keep Sega IN it. Competing on quality and features didn't get them anywhere for a number of years, which left only price as a method for them to compete. And it worked. EA did well with Madden, but not as well as they would have preferred - which is what triggered their own price cut.

EA, on the other hand, have taken direct steps to destroy Sega's ability to compete in the realm of sports (and particularly football). They've secured the NFL license exclusively, preventing Sega from putting a product on the field that directly competes with EA. They've secured the ESPN license for 15 years following the cessation of Sega's existing product, which effectively destroys Sega's brand and forces them to come up with something new. And they've secured the AFL license to prevent Sega (and others) from putting an alternative product on the field that might be recognizable in any way.

Are you honestly going to tell me that it's more predatory for Sega to do what they need to in order to put more solid footing under a struggling franchise than for EA to do what they did in order to remove the competition for their flagship product?

No. But your focus is too narrow. You are acting like EAs actions were meant to destroy Sega. They weren't and they won't. EAs actions were to strengthen its control of a part of the market (and probably small part depending upon the definition of the market in this case).

The law will tell Sega, "tough. Make a bull-riding game. Or one about a hedgehog zooming all over the place collecting coins." It sucks, but EA is fine, legally, on this one.

[Chief Rum]

No. But your focus is too narrow. You are acting like EAs actions were meant to destroy Sega. They weren't and they won't. EAs actions were to strengthen its control of a part of the market (and probably small part depending upon the definition of the market in this case).

The law will tell Sega, "tough. Make a bull-riding game. Or one about a hedgehog zooming all over the place collecting coins." It sucks, but EA is fine, legally, on this one.


Yup, and we're going to get shit video football games for almost two decades because of it. Wonderful. :(

CR

[Anthony]

Now EA has the incentive to make their game HORRIBLE and people will still buy it.

you are so terribly wrong on this. this line of thinking makes no sense. this is just someone talking out their ass. what company would ever try to put out a bad game on purpose? with all the money EA is spending on these licenses i now have every belief their games will be more awesome (or judging by the lack of innovation the last several years) will start being more awesome. keep in mind they don't own the license to the game of football itself. if i had to choose between buying a Madden game with a rating of 8.2 from IGN and a Sega game with no NFL/ESPN license but with a 9.2 rating - i'm not gonna automatically pick up the Madden. EA still has to make good games or else the smart buyer will just move on to the next "must-have" game and keep playing Madden 2005 forever.

regardless of license or not no company would willingly give up its share of the market by putting out a shitty game. too much money at stake.

[ISiddiqui]

Yep, HA is right. There were plenty of people who just said screw it with Madden in the late 90s, early 00s, and their sales numbers dropped. They realize that they have to put out a good product to make more money.

Think about it. They have NO competition in college football, and yet, they've put together some really good games there the last few years.

[Anthony]

I wonder how many people will boycott the Madden series because of their dissatisfaction with EA's business practices. I'd like to think that I would, but I know I won't if the game continues to improve.

what is their to boycott? the fact that "little ole innocent" Sega got screwed? Sega is/was a big corporation itself, i don't understand the sudden show of pity for them. it's called survival of the fittest. capitalism. and what exactly did EA do to you to make you consider boycotting it? spit on your mother? it's a company trying to make money. if you own a PC with Windows and IE then there's no need for you to boycott EA, because the company that made the OS you use and the web browser you surf the net w/ got to where it is largely using the same business practices (eliminating competition when possible).

if Madden 2006 comes out and is proclaimed the best football ever and if you wouldn't buy it just because they strong-armed Sega out of the market the only entity you'd be hurting would be yourself, because you'd be cheating yourself out of a good game.

my line of thought in all of this is no matter what - if the game is good i'll buy it. if i look on the shevles this fall and all i see is Madden and let's say it got bad reviews then i'm going to continue to play Madden '05 or save my money for something else. no harm done.

[Anthony]

if i'm Sega i'm giving a certain company called Solecismic a call. the dots all connect on this one. small company puts out highly praised text sim game without the NFL/NFLPA license. Sega is a company with name recognition in need of a piece of the football pie. Sega is now relegated to putting out a football game (if it so chooses to) without a NFL/NFLPA license. makes too much sense.

the next Sega/Solecismic venture could be the second coming of FPS Football. i tell you right now if this ever became a reality i would never buy another Madden game again.

make it happen Jim.

[GrantDawg]

if i'm Sega i'm giving a certain company called Solecismic a call. the dots all connect on this one. small company puts out highly praised text sim game without the NFL/NFLPA license. Sega is a company with name recognition in need of a piece of the football pie. Sega is now relegated to putting out a football game (if it so chooses to) without a NFL/NFLPA license. makes too much sense.

the next Sega/Solecismic venture could be the second coming of FPS Football. i tell you right now if this ever became a reality i would never buy another Madden game again.

make it happen Jim.
I get the feeling Jim would rather saw off a leg than deal with a major publisher again. AND if he saw badly SEGA US has screwed SI on the releases of WSM and EHM:FE, then he would know it would be unwise to get in bed with them. As much as all this sucks, SEGA is partly to blame as being a completely incompetent publisher with no foresight.

[Barkeep49]

I think it's because there are rules that garner how politicians can use their likeness. Because they serve the public, their likeness is also a public asset. That's why you don't see John McCain acting like Randy Johnson and speaking in TV ads for a car dealer. Again, I'm not sure on the specifics, but I think they are treated differently from a legal standpoint.
Ok but if you go to the supermarket you can see tabloids which use the names and likenesses of movie stars, for instance, without their consent. Athletes would seem to fall under that same sphere thus suggesting Jim is right about the legality of the EA/NFLPA contract, correct?

[Samdari]

Sega really needs to now focus on their NBA game. First of all, NFL wasn't going to go anywhere. Yes, it is a great game...I own more of their titles than Madden titles for Xbox. The problem is, I wasn't representative of the public,

From what I understand, ESPN outsold Madden on the XBox this year. The PS2 version of Madden vastly outsold ESPN, giving Madden the overall lead.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Ok but if you go to the supermarket you can see tabloids which use the names and likenesses of movie stars, for instance, without their consent. Athletes would seem to fall under that same sphere thus suggesting Jim is right about the legality of the EA/NFLPA contract, correct?

The first difference that springs to mind is that the tabloids, weak as their claim to it may be, are "press" organs, and are gaining additional protection as such. They generally seem to be adjudged different from, say, taking a photo of Kobe and sticking it in a video game, because the game is not "reporting anything" or "saying anything". It's similar to a loophole that is sometimes used by tabletop game designers, that finds them releasing "yearbooks" or some forms of printed media that at least gives the appearance of being "reporting" instead of "gaming". Of course, those "yearbooks" are then used in conjunction with rules designed to facilitate gameplay, but basically, it is avoiding lawsuits from leagues & players associations for a number of game companies.

http://www.wrf.com/db30/cgi-bin/pubs/WITANOWSKI.pdf

[Arles]

I think all this move has done is bought EA a little higher margin for error. But I would be really surprised if they just sat back and released "crappy games". In the end, the market and/or customer has final say. Even if EA purchased exclusive rights to use C++ and VB to develop football games on the PC and somehow legally succeeded, you would see a slew of Pascal, Java and even Fortran (well, maybe not Fortran ;) ) programmers try their hand at making a football game. Look at Linux if you want to see how to compete with a monopoly.

The last thing I could see coming from all this is bad football games for customers. If EA somehow misses on their chance here, someone else will swoop in and capitalize.

[KevinNU7]

All I have to say is that the NCAA brand has no competition and it is better then Madden, so this move doesn't bother me at all

[sterlingice]

Personally, what I don't understand is why Section 2 requires such a broad definition of the industry.

I mean, EA won't need to control the entire software industry now to jack up the prices on their football games, which is exactly what they will do. On top of that, there's little accountability now or motivation to improve if the market is cornered. All they have to do is do what they did with FOF--release an update with a player name file, and they will sell cajillions.

To my mind, this is the very definition of a monopoly. Unfortunately, the lawyers have gotten a hold of this one and screwed it all up.

I am perhaps paranoid, but I see this move as one that will stagnate the video football game market and perhaps eventually kill it.

CR
I think what you're getting at would be a nice interpretation of the law. However, I bet the lawyers will just argue that you can play *other* video games (i.e non-football) and thus it's not a monopoly. As has been stated a few times in this thread, no one really wants to enforce Sherman so it doesn't get enforced.

As to the stagnating the video football game market, all of these software mergers and closings are bad. This is a perfect example of a field where tons of competition is good. The more good games, the better, as consumers can buy tons of them once they have a given system.

It'll be an interesting season for Madden and I can't wait to see exactly what they plan on doing for 2006. The bad thing is, if Microsoft, Sony, or Nintendo piss them off.. I wonder if they'll threaten to take Madden off of their respective platform? In other words, what happened to Dreamcast, right? The hell of it is, something like THAT wouldn't be challengeable. That's EA's business decision not to make their product available for a specific platform. But it could be every bit as injurious and monopoly-inducing (for their "favored" company) as the NFL/AFL/ESPN business is.
Or how they had been butting heads with Microsoft and Xbox Live until this year. Same kind of thing.

A boycott will last about as long as it takes for someone to post, "I just bought Madden 2006 and damn! the game is sweet!". :D

I'll get it if it continues to improve and with the licenses they now have, I would have to think they will. I do think this opens up more business for Jim as some hardcore anti-EA players will look elsewhere for a football fix.
Yeah, I figure all the people who were saying they would boycott will last up until about the day it's out. If you haven't seen the light in buying a mildly updated game year after year for $50, why stop now? Why put your top notch sports developers and capital into making a game better when there's no competition and sheep buy anyways.

SI

[SackAttack]

Or how they had been butting heads with Microsoft and Xbox Live until this year. Same kind of thing.

Apples and oranges, really. EA's decisions to publish or not publish on a certain platform frequently affect the business decisions of small publishers, who can ill afford a sales "bomb." If EA don't think they can make money on a platform - or if they propagate the idea that they can't - then other publishers will shy away from the system as well. That's what happened to Dreamcast, in large part. EA avoided the system entirely because Sega wouldn't cut them a sweetheart licensing deal, and many other third parties either reduced their visibility on the platform, or eliminated it entirely.

In the case of Xbox, EA still released most, if not all, of their properties for Xbox. They simply didn't put them online until this past summer. That may have caused people to buy Sega instead (because at least Sega titles were online), but that certainly didn't hurt EA's profitability. Did it impede Microsoft's efforts to gain market share? Certainly. But nothing like what not having EA at all did to Sega's efforts to regain past ground.

[Kodos]

I've come up with the solution for Sega. Keep on releasing "expanded" versions of ESPN NFL 2K5 each year. Include a strong player editor so people can create the missing players each year and trade the updated rosters with eachother via the internet. Add new features, but always as just an "expansion" of the existing, licensed 2K5.

Brilliant!

[Neon_Chaos]

So now what happens to ALL the ESPN 2k franchises in basketball, football and baseball? Is sega going to rename the ESPN Basketball franchise into SEGA Basketball?

[SackAttack]

That, or else find a new sponsor such as Fox Sports or something.

[Neon_Chaos]

Maybe ESPN 8 Basketball, at "The Ocho!"

[ISiddiqui]

Interesting new information!!

In the Original X-Box Magazine this month, they say that according to what they've found out NFL Represenatives were behind the deal! In fact, they told EA that there were others who were offering to be the exclusive distributor and were basically auctioning off the exclusive rights to the highest bidder!! Very interesting indeed.

[Marc Vaughan]

I get the feeling Jim would rather saw off a leg than deal with a major publisher again. AND if he saw badly SEGA US has screwed SI on the releases of WSM and EHM:FE, then he would know it would be unwise to get in bed with them. As much as all this sucks, SEGA is partly to blame as being a completely incompetent publisher with no foresight.

Thats a very negative 'vibe' - imho while the US release was poorly done - its a learning curve for both SI and Sega US.

We have to learn the nuances of the American distribution and magazines (for instance we know a lot of journo's across Europe some of which beta test our games etc. - while in America I only know a small few).

While Sega US on the other hand have to understand our games and reassure themselves that they will 'break' into the market place in a big way - remember no ones ever had a massive hit with a text-based sim there before, as such we're a large unknown ....

As with everything SI does, the US release wasn't a one off and I'm confident that things will improve each year until we 'crack it' .... I'd love it all have to come together straight away, but life isn't always like that ....

[Solecismic]

I get the feeling Jim would rather saw off a leg than deal with a major publisher again. AND if he saw badly SEGA US has screwed SI on the releases of WSM and EHM:FE, then he would know it would be unwise to get in bed with them. As much as all this sucks, SEGA is partly to blame as being a completely incompetent publisher with no foresight.

Wait a second, I'm rather fond of having two legs.

Let's face facts here. The marketplace isn't what it was in 1998. I'm never going to get the attention again I got when I initially released FOF1. The major publishers know how the internet works now, they control so much more than they did back then. Being a solo developer doesn't carry the cache it used to carry.

What I'd avoid is mid-sized publishers that don't have established distribution channels. That's been the downfall of many independent developers. The major ones know what they're doing, and if one were interested and wanted a quality product, I'd gladly listen. The only bad experience I had with EA was annoyance with a certain lack of professionalism from Gigawatt, and the fact that EA just lost interest in the project when licensing delays cost us our marketing window for FOF 2001. Otherwise, it all went very well.

As the developer, I have to focus on the quality of the product. That's all I can control. If working with someone else can help get that product on to more computers, I'm all for it.

[Yossarian]

Sega's next football game:

http://www.ukresistance.co.uk/2005_01_01_ukresistance_archive.html

[Anthony]

Wait a second, I'm rather fond of having two legs.

Let's face facts here. The marketplace isn't what it was in 1998. I'm never going to get the attention again I got when I initially released FOF1. The major publishers know how the internet works now, they control so much more than they did back then. Being a solo developer doesn't carry the cache it used to carry.

What I'd avoid is mid-sized publishers that don't have established distribution channels. That's been the downfall of many independent developers. The major ones know what they're doing, and if one were interested and wanted a quality product, I'd gladly listen. The only bad experience I had with EA was annoyance with a certain lack of professionalism from Gigawatt, and the fact that EA just lost interest in the project when licensing delays cost us our marketing window for FOF 2001. Otherwise, it all went very well.

As the developer, I have to focus on the quality of the product. That's all I can control. If working with someone else can help get that product on to more computers, I'm all for it.

Sega presents: Front Office Football.

you heard it here first. maybe not this year, maybe not the next. this EA deal is great for people like Jim if you ask me. w/ one entity having control of the NFL, this opens up the incentive for alternate versions of the sport - basically more innovative games that can be on par with EA's game but without the shackles of a license.

let's face it - kids and teens who want to mash buttons will always buy EA, this deal doesn't change anything. what this does is create a niche for companies like Sega to explore other options. i'm telling you - a Sega/Solecismic partnership would be the next FPS. deep GM mode with the ability to grab the controller and the ultimate in customization.

this is a great chance for Sega to completely take hold of the PC market.