EA Capitalists yet Communists

[Stevo]

EA could have invested their 300 million dollars into making their game BETTER. But thats obviously not what they care about. Its about taking out the competition, and selling more copies. The other football game may be better, but does it matter when its not selling? I don't know what they should do or what I expect they do... We will see.

[NovaStar]

Quote: Originally Posted by Stevo

EA could have invested their 300 million dollars into making their game BETTER. But thats obviously not what they care about. Its about taking out the competition, and selling more copies. The other football game may be better, but does it matter when its not selling? I don't know what they should do or what I expect they do... We will see.

Stevo, my sentiments exactly. They would rather spend $300 million to kill the competition rather just put forth an honest effort to compete. Pathetic! Contrary to popular belief, ea was going to go down in that war, why? Because the ESPN name is bigger than maddens name. ESPN is a pop culture phenomenon, the madden name is slowly becoming obsolete. Twenty four hours a day seven days a week espn is seen. ea had to purchase time on the network to try to counter sega landing the license. They saw the writing on the wall, they got desperate, they knew they were going to lose. They b*tched up. Real simple.

[coogrfan]

Quote: Originally Posted by NovaStar

Stevo, my sentiments exactly. They would rather spend $300 million to kill the competition rather just put forth an honest effort to compete. Pathetic! Contrary to popular belief, ea was going to go down in that war, why? Because the ESPN name is bigger than maddens name. ESPN is a pop culture phenomenon, the madden name is slowly becoming obsolete. Twenty four hours a day seven days a week espn is seen. ea had to purchase time on the network to try to counter sega landing the license. They saw the writing on the wall, they got desperate, they knew they were going to lose. They b*tched up. Real simple.

The constant bashing of EA, on the assumption that they are responsible for this, reflects nothing more than your personal bias. EA isn't in a position to force the NFL to accept anything. It was the NFL that decided they were going to reach an agreement with one, and only one, videogame publisher. The NFL has a long track record of reaching exclusive agreements with it's licensors (two examples: DirectTV's exclusive Sunday Ticket rights, and Reebok's exclusive deal to provide jerseys and sideline gear for all 32 teams). The NFL does this because competative bidding results in higher rights fees, and thus more money for the NFL.

It was the NFL that decided that there was going to be only one company publishing a licensed NFL game. That fact left EA with two choices. They could either bid high enough to insure the continued existence of the cash cow that drives the company, or they could allow someone else to secure the license and see 15 years of establishing dominance in the market go down the drain. Kind of a no-brainer, isn't it?

I understand why 2k fans are bummed about this, but blaming EA for what was ultimately the NFL's call is wrong.

[rocker78]

Quote: Originally Posted by NMSU

Obviously not experts, because the ability to discern what political system a particular financial agreement most closely resembles has nothing to do with economics.

wow again a person who does not know what they are talking about. communisim is a form of government which includes what is called a command economy which is where the government controls all companies and tells them what to produce. so how is that what ea did.
that is all im saying becuase again i am not an expert but i do know that this is not communisim i am not going to get into a technical economic debate with someone who does not know what they are talking about.

[pietasterp]

Quote: Originally Posted by coogrfan

You're at an NFL game. You go to the concession stand to buy a beer. You notice that they are selling Bud and Bud Light, but no Heineken. When you ask why, the employee tells you that Bud purchased the beer concession at this stadium, and that it's an exclusive arrangement. "Huh?" you say, "But I don't like Bud. You're interferring with my right to choose, you commie b*stard! I demand that the deal be revoked immediately, or I will launch a protest." You scribble a quick sign, and begin to march up and down in front of the stand. Meanwhile, the many people in line who do either do like Bud, or who don't care what kind of beer they drink so long as it's cold, continue to buy the product the stadium is selling. The guy behind the counter looks at you, shrugs his shoulders and continues to sell Bud. The moral of the story-protest all you want, it isn't going to change a thing because the majority doesn't share your outrage.

Your analogy is flawed, because the NFL reaching a deal with Anheuser-Busch doesn't prevent Heineken from making their product exactly the same as they always have, with exactly the same labeling and ingredients. I understand where you're coming from, but this situation is totally unique to the other exclusive licensing deals the NFL has entered into, because the videogame product is so dependent on accurately reflecting the real game. Even the NFL's deal with Reebok doesn't hurt other clothes manufacturers, because it isn't like there's a company out there who makes exclusively NFL jerseys.

And no, the moral of the story isn't "protest all you want, it isn't going to change a thing." I'm actually quite relieved there are some people that are willing to do something about it, even if it is just to not buy the game themselves. It's obvious you aren't outraged, and that's fine. You're probably also right that the majority isn't outraged, and that's also fine. But that doesn't mean the people that are shouldn't try to do something about it. It's your kind of mindset and apathy that is the reason no politicians really give a flying #$&! about the youth vote (despite what MTV would have you believe), because they always just shrug their shoulders and say "protest all you want, it isn't going to change a thing." Obviously, we're talking about something pretty trivial in terms of videogames, but it's still symptomatic of something larger, and a larger issue of total consumer apathy. By all means, people - stand for something if you are upset, no matter how trivial! Even if it doesn't change anything, you're part of the solution as opposed to contributing to the problem.

[MrTennessee]

my God the video game business is becoming political. WHo is the democrat and who is the republican and who is the independent?

[pietasterp]

Quote: Originally Posted by MrTennessee

my God the video game business is becoming political. WHo is the democrat and who is the republican and who is the independent?

Are we gonna start dividing up the OS forums into red and blue threads?

[mgoblue]

I can't believe people are suggesting this is a monopoly...that's just laughable.

EA isn't keeping Sega from making a football game, they just acquired use of the NFL license. Why haven't you guys been screaming monopoly about the NFL's soda deal, food deal, anything that's the "official product of the NFL"? That's the exact same thing, the NFL licensing their logo to that company, and only that company.

Microsoft was intentionally trying to keep Netscape from competing in the internet browser market, now that was a better example of monopoly.

Sure, this all sucks, I love competition too, but it's completely legal. Did the NFL and EA screw fans who like a choice? Sure...but it's not the first time nor the last that a large company will screw the consumer.