EA Sports scores big...

"Prederick" wrote:

So, we''ll be able to beat up homosexuals, snort coke and be domestic abusers now? That''s what I remember from playmakers.

Don''t forget fantasing about the hot chick from Cold Pizza and praying like hell the wife doesn''t find out. Plus, driving an Aston Martin Vanquish to the game. It''s like GTA, only in football form.

LOL! Too true. Nice to see other folks think this is BS also.

Don''t forget fantasing about the hot chick from Cold Pizza and praying like hell the wife doesn''t find out.

Which?

Good news that NBA Street V. 3 will feature Nintendo characters. A reason for me to buy the new game.

I''m curious is this somewhat similar to say if Intel suddenly acquired exclusive rights to all Microsoft Windows Operating Systems thus dealing a potentially fatal blow to AMD. (actually certainly a fatal blow)

I''m pretty sure in the above scenario the Govt. would step in and not allow it.

While the EA/NFL deal isnt quite the same magnitude it does set a dangerous precident.

I would also suspect that the first Madden Football game to appear as the exclusive NFL license holder on Xbox 2 and PS3 will feature incredible graphics and simply awful gameplay/AI.

D''oh, I knew this had to be out here. My quick look didn''t catch it and I got *cough*ed.

This is a little interesting from a legal standpoint.

But sadly it takes place in Japan.

But if Take Two come out with a generic game where we could create our own team logos, name our own stadiums and such, that might be kind of cool. They can still used stats and player numbers. I like ESPN''s game play over Madden. I been trying to play Madden some yesterday and I just don''t like it as much. To me, ESPNs game play is more intuitive.

I like madden much more than ESPN but, this sucks for everyone.

We shouldn''t be mad at EA, NFL Players, Inc. and the NFL have been trying to find someone to buy the rights. This is good business for EA.

I''m not certain this will stand when all is said and done, but one thing will make me feel better...

... an announcement of a COLLEGE FOOTBALL game from SEGA/ESPNV. Come on guys, it''s the obvious next move.

That would rock. My Tennessee Volunteers would own. Oh wait. I wouldn''t have to have Rick Clausen as my QB would I?

Ulairi, it is probably good business for both EA and the NFL. However, it is disasterous news for football gamers. Being a football gamer myself, I am upset.

"Duttybrew" wrote:

Ulairi, it is probably good business for both EA and the NFL. However, it is disasterous news for football gamers. Being a football gamer myself, I am upset.

If I was the head of EA Games and the NFL was willing to sell me the exclusive rights, it would be wrong for me not to take them.

The NFL shouldn''t sign exclusive deals like this, it hurts them in the long run. There is now no reason to buy ESPN Football.

Well, they''re angry, but not neccessarily doing much.

""Sega has maintained a high level of competition in the football genre by publishing critically-acclaimed sports brands such as ESPN NFL 2K5. The agreement endorsed by EA, the National Football League and PLAYERS INC removes the competitive playing field; limiting creativity and innovation -- two fundamental principles that drive Sega and our industry to produce better games. Sega will continue to publish a diverse portfolio of sports and entertainment content.""

Take-Two adds:

"""While sports games in general are an important part of Take-Two''s product diversification strategy, the licensed NFL game we distributed on behalf of Sega this year was not a material contributor to our profitability to date, nor was it expected to be a meaningful contributor in the upcoming year. We remain committed to continued diversification of our product portfolio, including sports.

We believe that the decisions of the National Football League and PLAYERS INC to grant an exclusive license for videogames do a tremendous disservice to the consumers and sports fans whose funds ultimately support the NFL, by limiting their choices, curbing creativity and almost certainly leading to higher game prices."

"Ulairi" wrote:

There is now no reason to buy ESPN Football.

Entirely debatable. What if the gameplay is superior but you have to use ficticious teams and players? I''d go with that.

You wouldn''t even need ficticious players. They could have the players'' numbers and have their correct rating. The NFL can''t stop a game company from doing that. We don''t necessarily NEED the players names or anything. And I could care less if the videogame player really looks like his real life counterpart. (EDIT - and yes that is just my opinion)

I think this would be neat. Name you own team. Name your own stadium.

Wasn''t there a similar problem in Winning Eleven (I think I own #5), where player names were every so slightly mangled?
In any case, like Highlander said, player numbers should suffice. Add a reasonably easy method of setting up, downloading and sharing team/player names, and you''ve got a solution right there. Particularly if it will be a one/two click thing. The player community should be resourceful enough to make this purchase close to useless.

As posted earlier, I claim ownership rights for the HARTFORD JIHAD.

Ultimately is Sega has a Live enabled football game with the correct player numbers and ratings to reflect the real players then its trivial for someone to upload all the names.

You''ll end up missing logos on the uni''s and field and of course the announcers will not say any players names just numbers.

You''ll end up missing logos on the uni''s and field and of course the announcers will not say any players names just numbers.

Could it be possible that the announcer would behave like in EA''s NCAA Football games (ironically), and pronounce the name if it is included in the roster?

The Jihad is an awesome name! Usualy I vehemently loathe sports team names that don''t end in an ""s"" but that one rules.

"TheGameguru" wrote:

Ultimately is Sega has a Live enabled football game with the correct player numbers and ratings to reflect the real players then its trivial for someone to upload all the names.

You''ll end up missing logos on the uni''s and field and of course the announcers will not say any players names just numbers.

It will kill their sales not having the real players.

"Ulairi" wrote:
"TheGameguru" wrote:

Ultimately is Sega has a Live enabled football game with the correct player numbers and ratings to reflect the real players then its trivial for someone to upload all the names.

You''ll end up missing logos on the uni''s and field and of course the announcers will not say any players names just numbers.

It will kill their sales not having the real players.

Says who? Winning Eleven has a ton of misnamed players due to liscensing issues and it''s competing with FIFA easily. The sheer amount of anger this move has produced may buoy some sales ESPN''s way. I don''t think they''ll outsell Madden if they release a product next year, no way, but I think they could put something out and still be okay.

Says who? Winning Eleven has a ton of misnamed players due to liscensing issues and it''s competing with FIFA easily. The sheer amount of anger this move has produced may buoy some sales ESPN''s way. I don''t think they''ll outsell Madden if they release a product next year, no way, but I think they could put something out and still be okay.

Comparing a soccer game to a football game doesn''t make the most sense. Why would the average gamer spend money on a football game when they can buy the same type of game, at the same price, that is ""real"" football. ESPN $20 game was a one shot deal. They might keep it at $20 now that htey cannot use any real players.

I''d buy the ESPN game with ficticious team, stadium, and player names as long as the gameplay and franchise modes were solid. Some of my fondest football gaming memories are from the old Front Page Sports Football game playing with my made up World Football League. I went so far as to having the Metropolis Jets and the Gotham City Titans as teams

"Ulairi" wrote:
Says who? Winning Eleven has a ton of misnamed players due to liscensing issues and it''s competing with FIFA easily. The sheer amount of anger this move has produced may buoy some sales ESPN''s way. I don''t think they''ll outsell Madden if they release a product next year, no way, but I think they could put something out and still be okay.

Comparing a soccer game to a football game doesn''t make the most sense. Why would the average gamer spend money on a football game when they can buy the same type of game, at the same price, that is ""real"" football. ESPN $20 game was a one shot deal. They might keep it at $20 now that htey cannot use any real players.

I think you are missing the point here. No one is doubting the business sense of the move or disputing the damage it will do to ESPN''s games, if they even bother to produce one. People are mad at the conduct of EA and the NFL, and its obvious deleterious effect on the football gaming scene. I don''t understand what you are trying to argue. Will it cause less copies of ESPN top be sold: yes. Will some of those people cave and buy from EA: yes. Is it a good thing for the consumer: no.

"Ulairi" wrote:

Comparing a soccer game to a football game doesn''t make the most sense. Why would the average gamer spend money on a football game when they can buy the same type of game, at the same price, that is ""real"" football. ESPN $20 game was a one shot deal. They might keep it at $20 now that htey cannot use any real players.

Wait, what? I''m talking in sheer numbers and sales here, and globally, there are a few small collections of people who have consoles and enjoy soccer. WE in recent years has, for all intensive purposes, snuck up and begun bludgeoning FIFA with a brick.

And your definition of ""real"" football is lacking, and that''s what the issue is here for a lot of us. Pay $50 for a ""Real"" football game, where sure, the Ravens are the Ravens, and Ray Lewis is Ray Lewis, but now, rather than actually come up with something approximating a gameplan and a strategy, you just huck the ball to Travis Taylor 40 times a game and win 70-24.

Or, pay $50 for a ""Real"" football game where no, the players aren''t licensed, but there''s some actual nuance and skill neccessary. Where the gameplay is ""real"" and not just the licensing. I''d like to think that, given that choice, people would choose the latter. But then again, there''s not really a particularly good example (save for WE, which is 50/50 really) to compare this to.

I think you are missing the point here. No one is doubting the business sense of the move or disputing the damage it will do to ESPN''s games, if they even bother to produce one. People are mad at the conduct of EA and the NFL, and its obvious deleterious effect on the football gaming scene. I don''t understand what you are trying to argue. Will it cause less copies of ESPN top be sold: yes. Will some of those people cave and buy from EA: yes. Is it a good thing for the consumer: no.

Blame the NFL for it and not EA. EA is doing what EA should do and what Sega would have done if they had the cash. The NFL should keep their games open to multiple developers to push football games forward. The compeition between ESPN and Madden would have been good for Football.