 |
Quote: |
 |
|
|
 |
Originally Posted by spankdatazz22 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
lol so out of curiosity... should 2K have just "stayed in their place"? The notion that the 2K did it to themselves by price slashing is a falsehood created on the boards imo. None of us will ever know for sure, but really - if Macys buys x-number of Coach bags from Coach and decides to sell them at whatever price, what does Coach care? If Gamestop decides to sell Call of Duty at $19.99 and take a loss, does Activision really care long as Gamestop is paying whatever it is they pay up front for the title? It was EA that didn't want their prices being dictated by a competitor, not the licensor itself. NFL2K5 wasn't the only $19.99 priced game that year. And for every title EA was in direct competition with 2K, it lowered the price of it's games. Other sports games where there was no competition stayed the same price. So they acted the next year to eliminate sports game competition.
It trips me out how people will say MLB was mad at 2K for the quality of MLB2K. But did the NBA care about the quality of NBA Live during the Jesus Bynum situation? Did it care so much about Sony's NBA game? Did the NHL care about 2K's hockey game when it was an inferior product to EA's? These stories get created in the forums and the narrative is molded to fit whatever argument until they're repeated so much, they become accepted. If the NFL licenses it's shield to some toy maker to make a stuffed doll, I seriously doubt they dictate the price. They care it's product isn't being misrepresented, such as some over the top gory Blitz game based on the NFL property.
If you go by the logic that the NFL is that involved, then technically they should be disappointed because Madden no longer has the market share nor the clout/reputation it had during the PS2 years. It's all a moot point as the situation is what it is. It's just interesting to discuss. But I always find it surprising how some things got taken as fact over the past 10 years since the wave of those exclusivity agreements came down. Again, I don't see how anyone could argue that it's was "just a coincidence" each property decided to go exclusive all at once. With EA being the only company at the time in good enough financial standing to sign such exorbiant deals.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
This is strictly my opinion. For all I know, I can be completely off base; however, I do believe the NFL had its hand in the exclusive deal.