The Real Deal on Exclusivity...

[wwharton]

Quote: Originally Posted by sportsgeist

If VC still releases a 2k6 football game Madden2006 will still be destroyed by 2K6 reviews. On top of that people will see how much Madden is watered down and may come over to 2K6. We'll know by E3 if VC plans to release a 2K6 football game or not.

That's where you're wrong. It still seems hard to believe that things sell because of other reasons besides quality. Part of Madden sales come from people feeling it was the best NFL game in town. If VC had a game out this year, you're right, there would be a chance more people would pick it over Madden. That doesn't account for the millions of people that would still buy Madden blind and/or know little to nothing about the 2k series. Even if VC's game was truly 10 times better than Madden it still wouldn't "win" in sales, not this year anyway. They were on the way but no way they were there and may never have gotten there with less money, advertising and history.

Vader, I'm not getting into the meat of your debate with coogr but I do realize what I said was the same. I don't think you realize it. You interpret it to mean EA is evil and knocked out VC out of spite or at best, fear of them taking over. That makes no sense, especially if we're talking about this in terms of running a business. It doesn't matter where potential loss of sales comes from, if you have the ability and money to ensure an increase in sales or hault a potential loss in sales then you do it. You take it too personal, it's all about business.

[NovaStar]

Well, I hate to continue to stir the pot on an issue that has been much debated, but, I have to go with Vader on this one. I firmly believe that ea sports saw the writing on the wall, and that writing read "we are in trouble because in a year or two TT/VC will win this game". My reason for this opinion is quite simple, you have to play connect the dots. The name of big business is market share, period. How do I know? because I work for a major corporation in a legal compacity, we recently went through a merger, so I have a lot of knowledge on big business, big deals, and spin control.

Now, VC did a masterful job in marketing 2k5 this year, they lowered the price point, they had a more aggresive marketing campaign, they had T.O. on the cover and in commercials etc...coupled with that the fact that ESPN has its own network meant constant exposure to the football fanbase free of charge, you can't beat that. It was to the point that ea had to sponsor NFL tonight(or whatever the name of the weekly show was) just to keep their name in front of the fanbase, this wasn't free for them (the fact that they even did it speaks volumes to what they were thinking). Additionally, the madden name does not hold as much weight as it use to. The next/current generation of football gamers is a espn generation not a madden generation (it is no accident that all of a sudden ea now has espn instead of TT/VC, and now sits where VC used to sit). ea knew exactly where they stood going forward, frankly VC/TT beat them at the game fair and square, that is why I know, that ea went to the nfl and "suggested" that they give them the exclusive deal, that bid was an after the fact spin to make it look like it wasn't a back door deal. Use your own mind to think for a minute, if I have a bid between Bill Gates or Bill Cosby for a license, who is going to win that one going into the bid? Open bid my A**. Believe what you want, but one man's paranoia is another man's heightened sense of awareness. ea was going to lose that battle and they knew it. Again, an increase in market share was all VC/TT had to do to secure the win.

[wwharton]

my questoin is who's the man with the paranoia and who has the heightened sense of awareness?

EA had the sponsor for the show on ESPN long before VC made a deal with ESPN. Not to mention the draft and MNF. It pains me to defend a game I really don't like so much, but the reasoning by many here is backwards. You're taking the conclusion and then trying to make everything leading up to it make sense based on it. If you look at what EA has done outside of making the game good, they've marketed and sold this game better than maybe any other video game of all time. They gained a rep and a ton of cash and then turned both right around to further the marketing. Based on that, this is yet another brilliant marketing tactic even if you do want to blame the deal on them.

You don't have to like the deal. I don't. But be realisitc, this helps them make more money and that's all that's to it. You say TT/VC beat them fair and square? How is having the money to secure this license not winning fair and square? These arguments would make sense if it appeared the deal came and went too quick for VC or anyone else to attempt to outbid EA but that's not the case. They just simply didn't have the money to do it. Big business wins again. It sucks but it's reality, it's legal, it's fair.

[NovaStar]

Quote: Originally Posted by wwharton

my questoin is who's the man with the paranoia and who has the heightened sense of awareness? EA had the sponsor for the show on ESPN long before VC made a deal with ESPN. Not to mention the draft and MNF. It pains me to defend a game I really don't like so much, but the reasoning by many here is backwards. You're taking the conclusion and then trying to make everything leading up to it make sense based on it. If you look at what EA has done outside of making the game good, they've marketed and sold this game better than maybe any other video game of all time. They gained a rep and a ton of cash and then turned both right around to further the marketing. Based on that, this is yet another brilliant marketing tactic even if you do want to blame the deal on them. You don't have to like the deal. I don't. But be realisitc, this helps them make more money and that's all that's to it. You say TT/VC beat them fair and square? How is having the money to secure this license not winning fair and square? These arguments would make sense if it appeared the deal came and went too quick for VC or anyone else to attempt to outbid EA but that's not the case. They just simply didn't have the money to do it. Big business wins again. It sucks but it's reality, it's legal, it's fair.

The way to tell who has the paranoia or not is to simply connect the dots. You say that ea had the sponsorship before espn was with VC? I don't remember it that way. I remember that this was the first year that the show was actually brought to you by ea sports. Someone please correct me if I am wrong. That does not change the fact that ea had to pay for that bit exposure while VC got free exposure everytime espn was on the air. One more big dot one needs to connect. And this is also an after the fact dot. Do you believe that ea was not privy to the fact the Monday night football was going to go to espn in the coming years or did the planet just align themselves for easports? Where would that have put madden if VC still maintained the espn license? There are no accidents in business. Simply connect the dots and follow the money and you get your answers.

[1fortheroad]

Once again the NFL gets a free pass in this situation. What is EA the biggest bully on the block now. VC could not get free adverts on ESPN, they paid ofr the license not free airtime. If that was the case there would not have been an EA Nfl Matchup show. Or Madden would not have been all over the draft.

[NovaStar]

Quote: Originally Posted by 1fortheroad

Once again the NFL gets a free pass in this situation. What is EA the biggest bully on the block now. VC could not get free adverts on ESPN, they paid ofr the license not free airtime. If that was the case there would not have been an EA Nfl Matchup show. Or Madden would not have been all over the draft.

You are missing the point. The fact that it was an ESPN game meant that everytime the show was on the air it was free advertising for the game that carried the same name. Every time primetime came on it was free advertising etc... that type of exposure/advertising is free and impossible to beat. That is why ea sponsored the show to get in on the advertising/exposure but it was costing them to do it.

[wwharton]

you're wrong. i won't spend time digging anything up but you can or someone else can come with details. it was discussed when vc first got with espn why ea had its name on the show, it's images in the draft, it's face all over the network. vc never owned espn. espn is out to make money just like everyone else. the show deal was part of a result of the court ruling on "EASN" if i remember correctly. as for MNF, abc and espn are sister companies so the average couch potato could speculate on the game moving to espn at some point. if things remained equal the game could be on espn with Madden highlighting key players with images from Madden Next Gen on ESPN... just like they still use madden to show off rookies at the draft... on ESPN.

you know they say by connecting the dots you'll find that more people are afraid of public speaking than death. propoganda runs the world b/c of strategically connecting dots to give the intended perception. all you need to look at is one big dot... the yearly revenue by EA. that's the only dot they care about and all that matters for this move. does painting EA out to be this evil tyrant that took away the 2k series just to piss its fans off make you feel any better about the situation?

[1fortheroad]

How is it free adverts when the only people it reaches, are those that have the game? I am pretty sure quite a few people associate the ESPN brand with Konami. So if the sales were 70% Madden to 30% Espn/Sega/VC. How again is that free adverts.