A word on TV-Style presentation (ESPN) and Commentators...

[ODogg]

Quote: Originally Posted by Entiel

They are taking full advantage of the license, you all didn't think they aquired the license to make for a better more quality gaming experience, now did you? EA cares about quality? Since when? The advantage they have with the license is that they take ammunition away from they're (would be) competitors. Same reason they aquired CFL, AFL, Etc.

It wasn't so much about taking ammunition away from their competitors but keeping their ability to continuing to make their most profitable games. If they had not gotten the NFL license and say, 2K had, then it wasn't like 2K and EA could have both kept using the NFL license. If they hadn't gotten the license and 2K had then there would be no more Madden, which is by far EA's most profitable franchise. Alot of you make it sound as if EA did this to just cripple their compeition, which is partially true, but to not have done it would have been stupid since it would have crippled themselves.

Does 2K get anything from not getting the license other than sympathy and lamentations from posters on videogame boards? Being the loser in this aspect may be more "morally acceptable" and sympathetic and being the winner may make the winning company, in this case EA, ripe for flaming they couldn't handle the competition or whatnot but the bottom line is EA only cared about keeping the ability to continue to make it's games. The fact that the competition got knocked out is simply a bonus.

Given the choice between having 2K's sympathy, moral high ground, "what ifs" scenarios and 0 profits from 2K football and EA's flaming that they are the "Evil empire" or whatever, but continued sales of their games, the decision is a business no-brainer. In fact, outside of business aspects the choice is a very clear and easy one. So all of this flaming on EA is really silly since if you were EA you would have done the exact same thing, EA did nothing wrong in securing the licenses they could. As i've said many times, if you want to cry foul, your anger should be directed at the people who sold the licenses, not the company who smartly bought them.

[grunt]

Quote: Originally Posted by ODogg

It wasn't so much about taking ammunition away from their competitors but keeping their ability to continuing to make their most profitable games. If they had not gotten the NFL license and say, 2K had, then it wasn't like 2K and EA could have both kept using the NFL license. If they hadn't gotten the license and 2K had then there would be no more Madden, which is by far EA's most profitable franchise. Alot of you make it sound as if EA did this to just cripple their compeition, which is partially true, but to not have done it would have been stupid since it would have crippled themselves. Does 2K get anything from not getting the license other than sympathy and lamentations from posters on videogame boards? Being the loser in this aspect may be more "morally acceptable" and sympathetic and being the winner may make the winning company, in this case EA, ripe for flaming they couldn't handle the competition or whatnot but the bottom line is EA only cared about keeping the ability to continue to make it's games. The fact that the competition got knocked out is simply a bonus. Given the choice between having 2K's sympathy, moral high ground, "what ifs" scenarios and 0 profits from 2K football and EA's flaming that they are the "Evil empire" or whatever, but continued sales of their games, the decision is a business no-brainer. In fact, outside of business aspects the choice is a very clear and easy one. So all of this flaming on EA is really silly since if you were EA you would have done the exact same thing, EA did nothing wrong in securing the licenses they could. As i've said many times, if you want to cry foul, your anger should be directed at the people who sold the licenses, not the company who smartly bought them.

I just want a great football game for my next gen system. Year 2 without defensive playmaker and without a full implementation of the ESPN brand. I want to get excited about this game but I can't.

I blame the NFL not EA for the license and I blame TT for not coming out with a generic football game.

Peaace

[ODogg]

Quote: Originally Posted by grunt

I just want a great football game for my next gen system. Year 2 without defensive playmaker and without a full implementation of the ESPN brand. I want to get excited about this game but I can't. I blame the NFL not EA for the license and I blame TT for not coming out with a generic football game. Peaace

I agree on all fronts man. Totally. I was really hope TakeTwo would give us the rumoured NFL legends game at least but oh well.....

[PacMan3000]

I just wish EA would at least come out--or tell us in an interview--why they went in the direction that they did. At least, if it sounds logical, I could accept it. I understand they said they want the whole "on the field" aspect, but I need more than that. You can have an on the field sound aspect to a game, and still have good presentation.

Just come out and say it. Own up to it. If you don't want to put ESPN and TV style presentation in the game--fine. I'm personally not happy, but convince me on why I should be happy. Inform me on the signficant positives to not have EPSN and TV style presentation. Don't just keep mum and have us speculate and get further frustrated as we see TV style presentation in NCAA and ESPN presentation in NFL Head Coach. Give us some information.

At the very least, I could respect them for coming out and owning up to their decision making. Because at this point, I feel everyone working at EA either doesn't know any better, or truly doesn't give a damn about anybody (including the people who put the money in their fat pockets).

[ComfortablyLomb]

Was the one unchangeable camera angle part of the "on the field" presentation last year? Because it made the game basically unplayable for me... either too zoomed in or too zoomed out. Thanks a lot...

[Badgun]

Quote: Originally Posted by loccdogg26

however regular xbox and ps2 madden has madden commentating. The guys at EA chose the radio pa announcer for whatever reason. It is in the producer interview.

Yeah, but there had to be a reason why they went with it. I'm sure they read enough message boards and get enough feedback to know that very few people liked that awful radio announcer. So I'm assuming the reason is technical because I don't think they would have put him in knowing everyone hated him.

[TIm]

Yeah it's technical. They are lazy but We (me) will buy this game still hahaha. They know it. Why pay the announcers big money and cost more to pay empoyees when everyone will buy it. They have to recover money somehow..

[MachoMyers]

Quote: Originally Posted by TIm

Yeah it's technical. They are lazy but We (me) will buy this game still hahaha. They know it. Why pay the announcers big money and cost more to pay empoyees when everyone will buy it. They have to recover money somehow..

You would think that they would to make a great game that everyone raves about. You would think they would want to go above and beyond expectations. You would think they would go the extra effort so all their customers (OS posters included) are satisfied.

I am not 100% sure the development team at Tiburon does this.