Madden 16 Relocation Uniforms

[wpgjets23]

In Madden 15, you could move a team to a second city and keep the name of the first move. I used to move to Sacramento for the Miners (love the colours) and then move to Toronto for snow games. The only bad part is the audio still calling them the Sacramento Miners.

[ForUntoOblivionSoar∞]

Quote: Originally Posted by Sheba2011

Yea that was one of many things the NFL won't allow, along with celebrations. Which is hilarious that the NFL really cares that deeply about what someone does in the privacy of their own home. Are the Raiders going to lose money or suffer a reputation hit because little Johnny paints their helmet pink? This league amazes me sometimes lol.

Quote: Originally Posted by deaduck

If I recall correctly, the NFL 86'd the open create a team/ uniform for various legal and image reasons. I remember the specific example given was an all pink Raiders uni for some reason.

Proof? It's just like that tattoo thing. "The NFL won't allow them cause image" then POOF! Almost as soon as leadership changes, we get all of Kaepernick's tats, then the very next year OBJ.

I'll believe it when I see a source from someone associated with the league. Because just like the tattoo thing, all that was holding it back was resources to do it and a player willing to secure the rights to his tats. Image had NOTHING to do with it (which is EXACTLY why THERE WERE TATTOOS ON THE PS2 VERSION WHILST ALL THIS THE NFL PUT AN END TO TATS theory was in its heyday).

Guaranteed it's a matter of allocation of limited resources, and not an NFL imposed restriction, and I'll keep believing that until I see a source from the NFL. Just like tattoos, which I was right about.

[deaduck]

Quote: Originally Posted by wpgjets23

In Madden 15, you could move a team to a second city and keep the name of the first move. I used to move to Sacramento for the Miners (love the colours) and then move to Toronto for snow games. The only bad part is the audio still calling them the Sacramento Miners.

I didn't think about the audio.

Ugh that would be annoying to hear over and over in a long franchise.

[deaduck]

Quote: Originally Posted by ForUntoOblivionSoar∞

Guaranteed it's a matter of allocation of limited resources, and not an NFL imposed restriction, and I'll keep believing that until I see a source from the NFL. Just like tattoos, which I was right about.

http://www.si.com/extra-mustard/2014...res-nfl-remove

Let me draw your attention to a quote on the section on FREEWHEELING OWNER mode...

""One feature we added a number of years back was the ability to create a logo or customize a uniform," says a producer. "When it came to the uniforms, the NFL was particularly interested in making sure league policies were consistent. They said, 'We don't want to see the Oakland Raiders logo on a pink helmet'."

Subsequently, players using real NFL logos in the create-a-team mode had to adhere to a strict set of guidelines. Gamers wanting to cut loose with their color palettes had to use generic logos—chosen from a set that the NFL approved"

Is that enough proof...or do you wanna question Sports Illustrated's credibility too?

[ForUntoOblivionSoar∞]

Quote: Originally Posted by deaduck

http://www.si.com/extra-mustard/2014...res-nfl-remove Let me draw your attention to a quote on the section on FREEWHEELING OWNER mode... ""One feature we added a number of years back was the ability to create a logo or customize a uniform," says a producer. "When it came to the uniforms, the NFL was particularly interested in making sure league policies were consistent. They said, 'We don't want to see the Oakland Raiders logo on a pink helmet'." Subsequently, players using real NFL logos in the create-a-team mode had to adhere to a strict set of guidelines. Gamers wanting to cut loose with their color palettes had to use generic logos—chosen from a set that the NFL approved" Is that enough proof...or do you wanna question Sports Illustrated's credibility too?

From your article:

"The producer doesn't remember if it was the NFL or John Madden himself who requested that change," in reference to one of these things (the producer in question is SIs source for the article). We are going off a claim made by someone who can't even remember the details of who said what.


No it isn't enough proof. Your source isn't actually SI! It's si quoting EA! Did you read the article, friend? Si got that info from EA, the same people who challenged 2K to make an NFL game last year, deliberately implying that they even COULD despite not having an NFL license.

So no, it isn't. The NFL is the only source I will believe. Now, what I think ACTUALLY is going on is that EA is just being precautionary in what they do, going out of their way to not offend the NFL or the NFLPA. But do I believe that half of these restrictions come straight from them? Nope, not at all.

Again... "bring it 2K" comes to mind... oh, and the tattoos that still existed on PS2 during the time when the NFL supposedly outlawed tattos.



So in conclusion, #1), I don't trust EA on this, and it's not necessarily about their integrity. There is also the issue of these things happening YEARS ago, so the actual requests the NFL might have made may not have even been as redistricting as EA made them. 2.) there are bound to be details simply misremembered. And 3.) there are bound to be many changes EA made simply to avoid dealing with possoble NFL objections, particularly after the exclusive license deal.

Sports Illustrated is a fine source, but THEIR source for the article is what I find suspect.

[deaduck]

Quote: Originally Posted by ForUntoOblivionSoar∞

From your article: "The producer doesn't remember if it was the NFL or John Madden himself who requested that change," in reference to one of these things (the producer in question is SIs source for the article). We are going off a claim made by someone who can't even remember the details of who said what. No it isn't enough proof. Your source isn't actually SI! It's si quoting EA! Did you read the article, friend? Si got that info from EA, the same people who challenged 2K to make an NFL game last year, deliberately implying that they even COULD despite not having an NFL license. So no, it isn't. The NFL is the only source I will believe. Now, what I think ACTUALLY is going on is that EA is just being precautionary in what they do, going out of their way to not offend the NFL or the NFLPA. But do I believe that half of these restrictions come straight from them? Nope, not at all. Again... "bring it 2K" comes to mind... oh, and the tattoos that still existed on PS2 during the time when the NFL supposedly outlawed tattos. So in conclusion, #1), I don't trust EA on this, and it's not necessarily about their integrity. There is also the issue of these things happening YEARS ago, so the actual requests the NFL might have made may not have even been as redistricting as EA made them. 2.) there are bound to be details simply misremembered. And 3.) there are bound to be many changes EA made simply to avoid dealing with possoble NFL objections, particularly after the exclusive license deal. Sports Illustrated is a fine source, but THEIR source for the article is what I find suspect.

First off, trying to take a quote from the sections on concussions and trying to pass it off as relevant to the sections on uniforms is just shoddy. You can't cherry pick sentences from other parts of sources and apply them how they fit to your argument. Anybody who did read the article is going to know how clown shoes that is on your part...but you're just hoping enough people didn't read the article to question it. Poorly done sir, poorly done.

Secondly, it's clear you just want to have your EA rant. That's your prerogative but it's sad, in doing so, that you first questioned my "proof" about the statement on a pink Raiders uniform as if I was making it up, then when presented with the article proceed to question my reading skills. Some might take that personal.

And lastly, perhaps you are unfamiliar with how journalism works but SI has a department dedicated completely to fact checking. Which mean someone likely called the NFL office to verify the quotes and gauge the league's reaction. The cynical would note, that this increases the chance of a bigger story if SI could get a NFL official to dispute the EA producers quotes. There is no disputed claim by the NFL in the article so the quotes passed without objection.

The only party raising objections is you, and trying to cast shade on anything that doesn't fit neatly to your "theories".

[ForUntoOblivionSoar∞]

Quote: Originally Posted by deaduck

First off, trying to take a quote from the sections on concussions and trying to pass it off as relevant to the sections on uniforms is just shoddy. You can't cherry pick sentences from other parts of sources and apply them how they fit to your argument. Anybody who did read the article is going to know how clown shoes that is on your part...but you're just hoping enough people didn't read the article to question it. Poorly done sir, poorly done. Secondly, it's clear you just want to have your EA rant. That's your prerogative but it's sad, in doing so, that you first questioned my "proof" about the statement on a pink Raiders uniform as if I was making it up, then when presented with the article proceed to question my reading skills. Some might take that personal. And lastly, perhaps you are unfamiliar with how journalism works but SI has a department dedicated completely to fact checking. Which mean someone likely called the NFL office to verify the quotes and gauge the league's reaction. The cynical would note, that this increases the chance of a bigger story if SI could get a NFL official to dispute the EA producers quotes. There is no disputed claim by the NFL in the article so the quotes passed without objection. The only party raising objections is you, and trying to cast shade on anything that doesn't fit neatly to your "theories".

Nice try, but you completely missed the point of me bringing that quote up. It wasn't to deceptively miss apply it like you are claiming here (that's a straw man, by the way).

The reason was that it establishes that the producer was going off of MEMORY ON SOMETHING THAT OCCURRED LONG ENOUGH AGO that he may not have specific details.

Do you believe his Raider helmet example came straight from the NFL verbatim? I do not. I believe he was paraphrasing. But that was an extreme example. Does this mean the NFL forbade any NFL uniform changes?* (Like, say, white pants instead of silver, but the black and silver combo remains). I do not. In fact, how do we know that the NFL just asked vaguely to not change their various brands, and EA filled in the details?

Also, you didn't address the tattoo issue, where they were still in the PS2 version of the game when supposedly the NFL wanted them removed.





As for EA, I have no agenda against them. I am just skeptical of the details regarding the SPECIFICS the NFL asks for versus what EA delivers. This unnamed source has already established he was going off of memory on this, and he even established directly that he doesn't remember every detail. It is QUITE REASONABLE that a flawed human memory will gloss over details the person believes is irrelevant.

If the NFL only gave vague instructions about brand, but EA specifically decided how that would be implemented, what difference would it make ten years later to this producer who specifically decided what? It wouldn't matter to him at all. All that would matter a decade later is the end result.



*clearly the NFL did NOT care that much about specifics. Otherwise from whence comes the hundreds of uniform errors over the years? I think it is far more reasonable that the NFL merely set broad guidelines about brand and EA decided the details about it.

[deaduck]

Quote: Originally Posted by ForUntoOblivionSoar∞

The reason was that it establishes that the producer was going off of MEMORY ON SOMETHING THAT OCCURRED LONG ENOUGH AGO that he may not have specific details.

He said John Madden or the NFL requested the changes concerning concussions...that's pretty specific. That's still just TWO potential sources of the request. And on the pink uniform, he directly identified a League request...no confusion there.

And your complaint on him answering based on " just memory"... are you serious? What do you think... That every EA employee carries a secret dossier of Ways We Tricked The Public that he could of referred to? Do you carry a filing cabinet of records to refer to when someone asks about your job?

And what is your hang up about tattoos? I haven't said ANYTHING about tattoos so I don't understand your obsession with trying to insert them into so many posts.

I think we can pretty much narrow this whole thing to...

You didn't trust me when I talked about something I read (and slightly insulted me), I show you what I read proving you wrong. You double down...questioning my reading skills, the reporting of SI, the memory and truthfulness of a EA producer and pointed a doubtful finger at the NFL's attention to detail.