EA Still Owns the NFL License Exclusively

[HealyMonster]

So we knew EA held the license, and basically knew no other company owned the license to make a game, therefore EA exclusively owns the license. That doesn't nessecarily mean it's the same exclusive license that they have had for 10 years. 2k may not have gotten back into the game, and they may not ever, but I don't think we can say with 100% certainty that we know what is possible or what the specific details are regarding the nfl license and video games.

[LBzrule]

Quote: Originally Posted by hanzsomehanz

Bingo! 2K cheapened the product! There would be no glaring impetus for the NFL to give exclusive rights If 2K and EA were using the same price points. Sent from my SGH-I727R using Tapatalk

Meeh. The problem I have with this argument is that it takes for granted that the NFL did not know the situation in the NFL football gaming market. That is, it takes for granted that the NFL did not know about the competition between the two development houses and how one house was the big name in the market and the other one needed to do something drastic to get market share.

Second, the Thomas' were quite clear that this would be the only time that the game would be priced this way, indicating that they were giving people a "superior product" to get market share.

Third, it points to the NFL not even looking at 2k5 the game itself and recognizing it as a great product.

So in the end, the argument seems to say, the NFL never even looked at the game, they just looked at the 20 tag and said our product has been "cheapened." I think the NFL knew it had a competitive gaming market. I think they knew this would be the only time 2k had the price this way.

Lastly, if something sells for a cheap price does that mean a product has been "cheapened" in the sense that it seems to be used here, namely, to degrade?

Ehhh one more point, why would the NFL care how much anyone sold the game for when they had already gotten paid? I'd venture to say EA cared more than the NFL did because they had to lower their price and lose money and it pissed them off to no end.

I think the big idea for the NFL and EA is that hey, let's cut this off.
NFL: If you guys pay us more than we can get from all of these other guys paying us to develop a game, we can make it exclusive.
EA: Our development house just got their a$$ beat and those a$$holes over there made us lower the price on our game to compete. We lost money on that. They must be destroyed at all cost.

And that last sentence is not far from verbatim. Six to seven months prior to the exclusive license being signed EA's Jeremy Strauser publicly stated, "We are going to destroy the competition." No one knew what he was talking about at that point.

[LBzrule]

Quote: Originally Posted by iamgramps

It appears to me that 2k created this situation with their tactics of price slashing. This was an attempt to be cute and take the market share from EA and it back fired. Madden may not be the game a lot of us want, but 2k is to blame. EA fired back and gave 2k some of their own medicine. If 2k would have never opened that door and threatened the NFL brand, MAYBE an exclusive deal would not have come into play.

Again, how was the brand threatened and why would the NFL care when they already got paid from both EA and 2k that year?

[LBzrule]

Quote: Originally Posted by spankdatazz22

np you have a right to think if you want. Just sounds funny to me. A hypothetical would be if 2K or EA paid the NFL $10 billion dollars for the exclusive NFL license, then decided to give the games away for free. Some act like the NFL would say "Wait a minute - no deal! You have to sell each game at $59.99. Oh, and we tell you what an appropriate sale price is" "And when to have a sale"

I agree. The NFL already received their money that year from both parties. IF anything EA was pissed off they had to lower the price of their game to compete with a game that graphically looked miles better than their game did. The fact is EA lost money and their shareholders were angry especially with the market shifting. There is no doubt they saw this as something that could become a huge problem and their MO was to GET RID OF IT at all cost.

[LBzrule]

Quote: Originally Posted by bukktown

If he doesn't write code, what's he good for? (Rhetorical question) I believe the biggest problem with Madden is that they use too many gameplay designers. The game of football already exists. COPY IT! There is nothing to "design".

He's a producer. They don't write how linebackers react; OL blocking schemes; DB vs WR play. That's not what producers do. At least when it comes to this game anyways.

[LBzrule]

Quote: Originally Posted by bukktown

I don't know what other words to use to describe it but over-designed. Maybe they don't have too many designers, just bad ones?

Actually, if your inquiry is into why the game is in the state that it's in I'd say this.

EA has had great producers (IMO). They went out and hired ex-NFL players. They have access to all tape. They talk with coaches every year. So why is the game in the shape that it is in???

I wouldn't care if Ray Lewis was let's say the Producer of Tackling. He can sit there and tell programmers all day long about how tackling is supposed to be and what the outcomes would be, how this angle might produce that result. He's communicating with a programmer. And what he says is trying to be translating onto a computer screen. He can describe things perfectly day in and day out, but that does not mean that it's going to come up on that screen perfectly as he has described it.

We can watch all the videos from E3. EA hired Clint Oldenberg. But look at the OL. They might be blocking "right", but it still doesn't look organic. Same thing from the example above, he can tell them, but that doesn't mean it's going to be perfect in relationship to how he described it.

[FaceMask]

Quote: Originally Posted by LBzrule

Again, how was the brand threatened and why would the NFL care when they already got paid from both EA and 2k that year?

Exactly. The NFL didn't care about the pricing. EA however did care for reasons solely regarding their own profit margins, not wanting to cut the price of Madden to hang on to market share. They said it themselves in the Pecover memos.

The whole "The NFL went crazies about $19.99!" is a long-standing inaccurate tale that was told a decade ago in conjecture by internet posters and never died, despite the facts coming out disproving the tale, which most never read.

At this point, I just figure too many people believe it now that it will just stay the story people go with. It also doesn't help that there is a guy on YouTube spreading the same misinformation to his thousands of subscribers. I saw a poster mention the facts to him at the top of one vid, but apparently he ignored it because he keeps making videos spreading the misinformation. I sometimes wonder if some of these guys are paid to do that kind of thing, like disinfo agents or something.

[hanzsomehanz]

Quote: Originally Posted by LBzrule

Meeh. The problem I have with this argument is that it takes for granted that the NFL did not know the situation in the NFL football gaming market. That is, it takes for granted that the NFL did not know about the competition between the two development houses and how one house was the big name in the market and the other one needed to do something drastic to get market share. Second, the Thomas' were quite clear that this would be the only time that the game would be priced this way, indicating that they were giving people a "superior product" to get market share. Third, it points to the NFL not even looking at 2k5 the game itself and recognizing it as a great product. So in the end, the argument seems to say, the NFL never even looked at the game, they just looked at the 20 tag and said our product has been "cheapened." I think the NFL knew it had a competitive gaming market. I think they knew this would be the only time 2k had the price this way. Lastly, if something sells for a cheap price does that mean a product has been "cheapened" in the sense that it seems to be used here, namely, to degrade? Ehhh one more point, why would the NFL care how much anyone sold the game for when they had already gotten paid? I'd venture to say EA cared more than the NFL did because they had to lower their price and lose money and it pissed them off to no end. I think the big idea for the NFL and EA is that hey, let's cut this off. NFL: If you guys pay us more than we can get from all of these other guys paying us to develop a game, we can make it exclusive. EA: Our development house just got their a$$ beat and those a$$holes over there made us lower the price on our game to compete. We lost money on that. They must be destroyed at all cost. And that last sentence is not far from verbatim. Six to seven months prior to the exclusive license being signed EA's Jeremy Strauser publicly stated, "We are going to destroy the competition." No one knew what he was talking about at that point.

If it is a matter of terms I can explain but if you simply have differing views I will remain still.

I used the term cheapen literally and in the figurative sense: lit in respect to unit prices and figuratively in what it spoke to the consumer - " other pro sport titles are being sold for much more but here is a solid product you can have for the *cheap cheap."

I used the term impetus to acknowledge that it was the difference in price points (not base product value) that provoked the cry for change - NFL being the mediator, fascilitator, and pivotal partner for the change.

***wish we could quote what the quoter quoted***

I respect your views and I appreciate that you shared that comment about "destroying competition" - never knew that statement existed (in seriousness).

Sent from my SGH-I727R using Tapatalk