What if the shoe was on the other foot?

[KBomber]

Honestly, I think both companies need each other to improve the quality of gaming experiences for the video gaming public. I think that Madden stagnated without another product to push them, and I think if anything, VC pushed them too far, to the point where they considered and executed a move like this

This isn't the type of move you make unless you feel your product is threatened. With a 15 to 1 sales ratio turned into a 1.5 to 1 ratio, the impact is evident in very transparent terms

I promise you that a game focused on maximizing profits as its premier goal will never seek to push the limits of creativity and innovation. In a competitive environment these things are the keys to success

I don't know how having no choice helps us as a community interested in the highest quality products

Bash away, bash away, bash away all..................

Quote: Originally Posted by KBomber

Honestly, I think both companies need each other to improve the quality of gaming experiences for the video gaming public. I think that Madden stagnated without another product to push them, and I think if anything, VC pushed them too far, to the point where they considered and executed a move like this This isn't the type of move you make unless you feel your product is threatened. With a 15 to 1 sales ratio turned into a 1.5 to 1 ratio, the impact is evident in very transparent terms I promise you that a game focused on maximizing profits as its premier goal will never seek to push the limits of creativity and innovation. In a competitive environment these things are the keys to success I don't know how having no choice helps us as a community interested in the highest quality products Bash away, bash away, bash away all..................

EA has been trying to obtain this position for years. They really didn't make the move, the NFL did. There was a bidding process even if there was no doubt who would win. There's no doubt that EA was threatened with the success of the NFL 2k5 offering this year. I don't disagree with you that the competition does push any company, but it's not guaranteed that innovation will stall without it nor is it definite that innovation will increase because of it. -

[UkTribe]

Quote: Originally Posted by ObiWanJenkins

Tell me then, UK, why didn't EA take the best ESPN had to offer and ESPN take the best EA had to offer. If the competition guaranteed innovation, Sega's offering would have been so much better than it was after the first offering. Sega was trying to gain a foothold, which should make them work harder, yet their offerings were no more improved year to year than EA's. You can also look at Microsoft and their 90% marketshare of the desktop market. They have been innovative in the absence of competition. Not as much as we would like, no doubt, but innovative nonetheless.

Every reasonable person on these boards accepts that competition drives innovation. To be honest ObiWan I suspect that you would happily have accepted this a few days ago. But now your judgement is clouded because there has been some angry posts.

Read your Microsoft paragraph again - you make my point for me.

I really cant work out what you are trying to say with the Sega and EA paragraph. But competition driving innovation and value and being good for the consumer is a widely accepted concept by reasonable people. I do not have to prove it from first principles just because you dont like how i say it.

[UkTribe]

Quote: Originally Posted by sdrotar

It will if the competing companies have any intent to survive. ECON 101, baby. Seriously, if anyone thinks that EA has the same incentive to innovate in their NFL game that they did before this deal, you're nuts.

ObiWan - Dont forget its not just me. I'm sure some of these other posters would value your unique viewpoint.

[blackceasar]

I would be upset if VC had the exclusive deal but not NEARLY as upset as I am with EA having it because for me, Sega's game is a better game. Im just upset because EA has a track record of just recycling thier games..and they were doing this BEFORE they got this exclusive deal. What makes you think they are going to do anything any differently now? The one thing that at least halfway forces EA to stop being lazy is now gone. If EA knows they dont have to put forth any more effort, spend any more time, or money to get you to buy thier games, what makes you think they are going to? Imagine if you sold a prodcut and you sold it for 100 bucks a pop and everyone in the world was buying up your product to the point where you are very happy with the revenue you make from it...and there is no competition...why would you cut the price in half? Why when you dont have to? Why is EA going to get off thier butts when they really dont have to now? guess what..they arent.

What the EA fanboys and madden loyalists dont understand is that this deal is bad for them too. What if 5 years from now Madden is still the same game, with the same animations, and just roster updates??? You dont think youd be dissapointed? You dont think youd be saying "dang, its been 5 years now..they could do ALOT more with this game now but they dont". Just watch and see, everyone is going to suffer from this unless you hold stock in EA.

[ComfortablyLomb]

I would quit playing football games if Sega won the deal. ESPN is a great game but I just don't like the way it plays or feels. I guess I would go back to exclusively playing baseball and hockey video games and hang up my video-Madden cleats. That's just me though. I do feel for all of the ESPN fans out there because it's really just not fair to the fans.

Quote: Originally Posted by UkTribe

Every reasonable person on these boards accepts that competition drives innovation. To be honest ObiWan I suspect that you would happily have accepted this a few days ago. But now your judgement is clouded because there has been some angry posts. Read your Microsoft paragraph again - you make my point for me. I really cant work out what you are trying to say with the Sega and EA paragraph. But competition driving innovation and value and being good for the consumer is a widely accepted concept by reasonable people. I do not have to prove it from first principles just because you dont like how i say it.

No, I do agree that competition contributes to innovation, but again, Sega did not greatly improve on their product year to year with competition. Competition is not the ONLY thing that drives innovation.

Microsoft is extremely innovative. Microsoft is not stagnant in the absence of competition. They have continued to push forward with perfecting and innovating their products release to release. Linux is free and has not gained significant marketshare among consumers with millions of "developers" emplementing what they think will improve the program.

Sega was on the lower ground to EA in the football genre. According to this "statement of fact" that competition is the only thing that drives innovation, Sega should have greatly improved their product year to year, making better use of the ESPN trademark, developing and improving playablity, and improving presentation. They did not. Every year the reviewers rated both games almost the same. The Sega game offered a better game in the areas EA was lacking and EA offered a better game in the areas Sega was lacking. Neither company attempted to improve the area that made the other game better. In the face of competition, neither company was any more innovative than the other. I am not stating as fact nor opinion that competition doesn't help innovation and improvement, but I am disputing that competition is the only thing that drives it.

[ODogg]

Quote: Originally Posted by ObiWanJenkins

No, I do agree that competition contributes to innovation, but again, Sega did not greatly improve on their product year to year with competition. Competition is not the ONLY thing that drives innovation. Microsoft is extremely innovative. Microsoft is not stagnant in the absence of competition. They have continued to push forward with perfecting and innovating their products release to release. Linux is free and has not gained significant marketshare among consumers with millions of "developers" emplementing what they think will improve the program. Sega was on the lower ground to EA in the football genre. According to this "statement of fact" that competition is the only thing that drives innovation, Sega should have greatly improved their product year to year, making better use of the ESPN trademark, developing and improving playablity, and improving presentation. They did not. Every year the reviewers rated both games almost the same. The Sega game offered a better game in the areas EA was lacking and EA offered a better game in the areas Sega was lacking. Neither company attempted to improve the area that made the other game better. In the face of competition, neither company was any more innovative than the other. I am not stating as fact nor opinion that competition doesn't help innovation and improvement, but I am disputing that competition is the only thing that drives it.

I agree wholeheartedly, a company does not have to have competition to continue to innovate and improve their product. Another great example is EA's other football game NCAA. It continues to innovate greatly from year to year despite no competition whatsoever. That kind of shoots a hole in the theory EA will do nothing with Madden now that there is no other NFL game IMO.