PSX5Central
Playstation/Gaming Discussions => PS3 Discussion => Topic started by: clips on December 13, 2004, 06:57:42 PM
-
wtf?...were they that scared of the competition?...hope you rot in hell f**kin a$$holes...
http://www.gamespot.com/news/2004/12/13/news_6114977.html
my support for them has dropped tenfold! i cannot believe they would stoop so low....f**kin pricks...you know what? F**K madden and F**K EA SPORTS!
-
They also treat their employees like shit. Most of them are suffereing from exhaustion.
-
LMAO, this is too funny, I feel bad for Sega, well maybe they can hire some extra help from Sega and get some of that style and flair from there counterparts. I swear if EA slacks, ****\'em
-
good for them, piss on nfl2k*
i see they were gonna abandon the 20$ price point anyways for all thier shitty titles
:rolleyes:
-
5 years? I dont like football games really but this is just sick. This is one of the reasons why i just dont like EA. Now i know madden doesnt suck, and making money is definately a big part of the game but to just stomp all over the competition and have people either not have an NFL game to play for 5 straight years or buy madden is sleazy.
I second the first notion - f*** EA Sports.
-
i see they were gonna abandon the 20$ price point anyways for all thier shitty titles
NFL2K is still the best football series. At the very least, it prompted EA to improve the Madden franchise big time to thwart the competition, but without that competition, EA can theoretically charge $65 a copy and only do a simple roster update and change the boxart and name it Madden 2006. What other option do you have if you want to play football? You actually think this is a GOOD idea? Well, good luck. If they do charge 65 a copy, you better be buying 3 copies at full price and tell me how great this is.
-
ok i\'ve calmed down some....bottomline this is not good for the industry overall,...since the beginning we\'ve always had a choice for football games ea,sega, 989,midway..xbox\'s franchise title...now it\'s just by madden or nothing?..i guess EA lied when they stated they wasn\'t worried about the competition...obviously sega made the better product this year and instead of EA going back to the drawing board to try and make a better product, they chose to just shut down the competition completely....
now you are really going to get rehashes year after year....s**t that\'s all they ever did anyway..since 2002 madden basically plays the same...sadly some will still preorder this stinkin\' pile that is madden like it is gold....heh espn was better than madden last year and was it was better this year...ea acted like a bunch of pussy\'s and trust this is not a good thing for the consumer...
-
DIE EA, DIE!!!!! They truly are the most ignorant, power/money-hungry, bastard, stupid motherf^ckers that ever walked the face of the EARTH...
ok i\'ve calmed down some
That\'s unacceptable!! NO calming down!! This is the stupidest thing I\'ve ever heard of in my ENTIRE LIFE!! You have every privilege to be pissed off!! F^ck EA in the @ss until it bleeds!!
/end rant
:D
-
i like madden and this pisses me off. EA has a bunch of improvements to make and now they aren\'t pressed to do it with nfl2k making its own improvements.
So i will second this and say F*** EA. especially if they dont improve the game. In that case i will take a sh*t on the madden series. The game as is pisses me off sometimes. Only reason i play it is because i still like the gameplay more than the 2k series.
-
:D Hahahah, join the club ; I do not like EA for quite some time now. Mmm, I\'m not that interested in football games, but they already killed off the F1 games. Not that Sony is doing much better a service to the F1 gamers community, but hey, EA\'s F1 games sucked so hard. What a friggin\' slideshow that was.
Now, they\'re busy killing any potential what\'s left in any Bond story game. EA\'s kinda like parasite harvesters. It\'s not even the individual EA employee, but that buncha management suits that\'s \'arranging\' all this.
oh btw check this :
new EA employees article (http://www.gamespot.com/news/2004/12/13/news_6114974.html)
-
I think we will see other football games for sure.....
One of these companies has to go all out and just make a game that blows madden out of the water. Something incredible.
-
I never could get into football video games. Except Tecmo Bowl. Now that is one game that will never EVER be topped.
And there was also a Nintendo football game where it had these alien looking monsters. They\'d poop on the field and if anyone stepped on it, it would blow up like a claymore mine. You could even bribe the ref! What\'s the name of that one again???
-
Originally posted by mm
good for them, piss on nfl2k*
i see they were gonna abandon the 20$ price point anyways for all thier shitty titles
:rolleyes:
I will remember this the next time you complain about MS and unfair business practices.
Go ahead and bash me - but I\'m not the one who made such an ignorant statement.
-
I\'m sure there\'ll be lots of other games but without the licenses of course. Pro Evolution Soccer has never, until the most recent edition, had any licenses but has had the best gameplay by far. FIFA is crap compared to PES even if it doesn\'t have the licenses etc that FIFA does.
Licenses aren\'t everything, gameplay >> licenses IMHO.
-
this really sucks. even if you are a huge fan of the madden series I can\'t see how you could think this is a good move.
Less competition means they have no need to strive and make their games better by leaps and bounds. I just hope sega dosen\'t give up on their NFL games, I kinda liked this years version.
-
Originally posted by JP
I\'m sure there\'ll be lots of other games but without the licenses of course. Pro Evolution Soccer has never, until the most recent edition, had any licenses but has had the best gameplay by far. FIFA is crap compared to PES even if it doesn\'t have the licenses etc that FIFA does.
Licenses aren\'t everything, gameplay >> licenses IMHO.
Tell that to Joe Blow who wants to play as T. O . While a lisence may not make everything, in this genre it does make up a huge amount of the sales.
-
Yea, soccer is a bit different here in the states, people who play soccer games don\'t play them to play as people they play it to have fun over there, but here people want names, that includes any sports, would you play basketball, football, or even some stupid nascar game if you couldn\'t be a certain icon or figure in the game.
-
Originally posted by Knotter8
Now, they\'re busy killing any potential what\'s left in any Bond story game. EA\'s kinda like parasite harvesters. It\'s not even the individual EA employee, but that buncha management suits that\'s \'arranging\' all this.
oh btw check this :
new EA employees article (http://www.gamespot.com/news/2004/12/13/news_6114974.html)
I agree for the most part and EA butchered the Goldeneye name by making that terrible FPS with the same title but only because the main character had a golden eye - lame. I must say though, that the other bond games like nightfire and epecially Everything or Nothing have been pretty good.
About football games - The only one ive been hooked on was blitz on N64 - what a rush.
-
Now there is NO competition for Madden, and they can continue to put out the exact same game every year with updated rosters and charge $50 for it.
-
madden > *
the sales have always reflected this
EA buying Sega so there wont be any NFK2k*
now thats a M$ tactic
:rolleyes:
nice try tho
-
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
Tell that to Joe Blow who wants to play as T. O . While a lisence may not make everything, in this genre it does make up a huge amount of the sales.
I know, which is why that turd FIFA sells as much as it does as well. I just think people have the wrong priorities.
-
Originally posted by mm
madden > *
the sales have always reflected this
I\'ll remember this next time you go off about how bad some musician/movie is.
Titanic > *
Look at the numbers. Sales prove me right.
-
Originally posted by GmanJoe
...And there was also a Nintendo football game where it had these alien looking monsters. They\'d poop on the field and if anyone stepped on it, it would blow up like a claymore mine. You could even bribe the ref! What\'s the name of that one again???
It was Mutant Football League.......I think. They had a hockey game too.
-
Originally posted by Black Samurai
I\'ll remember this next time you go off about how bad some musician/movie is.
Titanic > *
Look at the numbers. Sales prove me right.
Bingo. Exactly the point. I knew mm would spout off on some stupid sales idea to prove his "point" when that has nothing to do with anything. Hey, mm, how\'s that copy of Enter the Matrix doing? It sold over a million in 18 days, it must be good!
-
This is a terrible thing for the football gaming industry. EA will have no competition from now on and will make fewer and fewer changes each year to Madden then they already do. EA has done the worst possible thing. I don\'t understand why they can\'t just both benefit and share ideas and such and produce the best football game out there. Not get one with good stuff and the other with good stuff, but there is no way to have both with both the good stuff...s..... ;)
-
oh man this is so gay. Competition benefits consumers period. If you think anything else you\'re wrong
-
Originally posted by Magoo
oh man this is so gay. Competition benefits consumers period. If you think anything else you\'re wrong
I agree for the most part. Look at Microsoft. No real competition for Windows (except for maybe Mac). They dominate the computer market.
-
Titanic was actually a great film, regardless of how you feel about it.
it set a new standard for large budget hollywood films.
enter the matrix? thats a whole new genre.
name another football game that came anywhere near maddens sales. none? oh, i wonder why.
certainly didnt have anything to do with the licensing of names, stadiums, ect
:laughing:
-
and your point is?
I don\'t see why you base everything off of sales numbers. People are sheep and buy what their friends play / buy. Just because it\'s the most popular dosen\'t make it the best.
-
And movies have jack-diddly-crap to do with this thread. We\'re talking about the affect of EA\'s gay decision on the NFL game genre as a whole and all it\'s developers, not how great you think Titanic was. That\'s a mute point relevant to nothing.
-
Originally posted by EviscerationX
And movies have jack-diddly-crap to do with this thread. We\'re talking about the affect of EA\'s gay decision on the NFL game genre as a whole and all it\'s developers, not how great you think Titanic was. That\'s a mute point relevant to nothing.
That wasnt the point.
The point was that mm uses sales to justify his point. Titanic, to many wasnt that great but the sales are so great anybody could say that its one of the greatest movies of all time.
Make sense?
-
Yes I got the point already ;) But he never has a point. I think Titanic was crap, no matter what the sales say [which brings up another point, I know].
-
enter the matrix? thats a whole new genre.
Genre has nothing to do with it. The point is the franchise name as that\'s what sells games, not the quality of the title. ETM is an incredibly valid point. It sold a ton, it uses a franchise name to sell copies, and it worked despite its lack of quality and consistantly poor reviews. No matter how many times Madden is defeated review wise by the 2K series, it always sold more, not because of its quality, but because it\'s MADDEN. Enter the Matrix did not sell well because of its quality, it sold well because it\'s THE MATRIX. Be smart about this man. It\'s really quite simple.
-
I think it\'s great. I love EA... y\'all sound nearly as bad as the kiddies at TXB with the EA hate. I somehow thought since PS2 is EA\'s favored console, it would be taken better. I guess I was wrong... it\'s just a franchise. Sega can still make ESPN games, they just can\'t use the names. Sure, Joe Public wants the names, but Joe Public has been buying Madden over ESPN anyways.
-
It has nothing to do with just the names, it has everything to do with the innovation and the new style of gameplay. A refining and improvement on the series brought on by solid competition which will now be lacking. Remember, EA lacked any real competitor with Madden from the Genesis and SNES days -- heck, they were just competing with sales of the game per console with themselves and that was just a friendly competition as all the money still went into EA\'s pockets. It wasn\'t until the PSX days when NFL Gameday came out that EA finally woke up and found themselves needing to improve the formula before they lose all of their fanbase to a Sony first party developer. Heck, the year NFL Gameday came out, Madden was being released on the PSX still in 2D confident their product was good enough for Joe Public and it clearly wasn\'t.
Now, people are actually happy this type of thing can and will happen again? Please, without competition, EA is completely weaksauce. They secure a franchise and then drive it into the ground. Is it any wonder why all of their franchise based games are essentially flash in the pan quick hits? Do you think EA would fall back to the house that Rare built with Goldeneye and make a Goldeneye 2 if any of their James Bond based FPS games were nearly as successful? How many Sims games and Sims yearly expansions do we need until people realize what the hell is happening here? How can any of this be good? Someone please explain it to me.
-
OK...I get his ignorance now, Ryu ;) Thanks...
-
i have no interest in any football, soccer or Aussie Rules shit.. so i really don\'t care... but it is pretty low to do shit like that.
-
It\'s business, meh.
-
Originally posted by Ryu
It has nothing to do with just the names, it has everything to do with the innovation and the new style of gameplay. A refining and improvement on the series brought on by solid competition which will now be lacking. Remember, EA lacked any real competitor with Madden from the Genesis and SNES days -- heck, they were just competing with sales of the game per console with themselves and that was just a friendly competition as all the money still went into EA\'s pockets.
I still, to this day, hear ppl calling one of the Genesis Madden\'s (I don\'t remember which one, not really my kinda game) the \'best\' Madden to date. It has nothing to do with the names? Funny, because that\'s what EA bought. Show me where this deal stops ESPN Fantasy Football 2005 from being released. Please. I dunno if you noticed, but Sega dropped ESPN to ghetto prices and STILL was crushed by Madden; EA has had NO motivation this gen to \'innovate\'. This is no different from any other license, regardless of how popular the sport may be this is not \'bad\' for the industry - it will have no effect on it. Madden will still sell bucket loads, ESPN will still break the top 10 for maybe a month if even and then drop off, and the industry will continue on, uneffected. If EA somehow made it impossible for any other football game to be made, ok, I\'d see the problem. NCAA, Fantasy, generic arcade - all directions any game company could go in with their own football game, they just can\'t use NFL names. Ohhh, evil monopolistic EA! OMG, Activision has a Tony Hawk monopoly! Lets get the online petitions fired up!
Fact is, EA paid $3 million. Sega, Sony, MS, Nintendo, Midway... any of them could have offered up that much; they obviously didn\'t, and the NFL/PA has no obligation to create or promote \'competition\' in the subgenre of football videogames. No one else has the LOTR license, and most people seemed to love Two Towers. No Harry Potter competition, and every HP fan I know loves EA\'s games (don\'t try the \'only kids like that crap\' either, every single one is a legal adult). The assumption that EA would just give up because they don\'t have Sega\'s (non-)competition anymore in the area of NFL licensed football games is retarded. EA spends large amounts of money supporting all three consoles with games that, like them or not, have some of the highest production values in the industry (esp. for multi-platform games) is stupid, and completely unfair.
It wasn\'t until the PSX days when NFL Gameday came out that EA finally woke up and found themselves needing to improve the formula before they lose all of their fanbase to a Sony first party developer. Heck, the year NFL Gameday came out, Madden was being released on the PSX still in 2D confident their product was good enough for Joe Public and it clearly wasn\'t.[/B]
So... it sold poorly? EA can never conceivably learn from past mistakes? EA personally hates gamers and will abuse the fact that they have the license for a whopping (sarcasm) 5 years by making shitty football games that no longer get 9.somthing out of 10\'s in every review?
Now, people are actually happy this type of thing can and will happen again? Please, without competition, EA is completely weaksauce. They secure a franchise and then drive it into the ground. Is it any wonder why all of their franchise based games are essentially flash in the pan quick hits?[/B]
I enjoy quite a few non-sports EA games, personally. The millions of people who have helped make EA the biggest 3rd party by buying their games seem to like their games too.
Do you think EA would fall back to the house that Rare built with Goldeneye and make a Goldeneye 2 if any of their James Bond based FPS games were nearly as successful? [/B]
EA is a smart business. GE is a bankable name. I\'m sure the platinum selling previous Bond\'s didn\'t sell in a way that \'forced\' EA into doing anything.
How many Sims games and Sims yearly expansions do we need until people realize what the hell is happening here?[/B]
Realize what? I\'m not a fan of the Sims, but if EA was to make expansions of their console games, I\'d certainly be very pleased.
How can any of this be good? Someone please explain it to me. [/B]
Because... wait for it... *deep breath* not everyone likes the same games you like, and many actually like EAs games. Amazing, isn\'t it? We like their games, and don\'t fault them for being smart businessmen. Crazy as it seems. A million Sims expansions? Sims fans want them. Better graphics, roster updates and nothing else new in Madden? Guess what, sales indicate the people want that too. Could they be better? Sure, any company could. Could this situation be better? Sure, everyone could be happy if EA didn\'t get the contract. But lifes not perfect, and this isn\'t going to hurt the game industry, or even be a slight annoyance to 80% of gamers. It\'s just business as usual.
I\'m not arguing just for the sake of arguing, I really and truly just think that people are overreacting to this, big time.
-
Originally posted by EThuggV3
I dunno if you noticed, but Sega dropped ESPN to ghetto prices and STILL was crushed by Madden; EA has had NO motivation this gen to \'innovate\'. This is no different from any other license, regardless of how popular the sport may be this is not \'bad\' for the industry - it will have no effect on it. Madden will still sell bucket loads, ESPN will still break the top 10 for maybe a month if even and then drop off, and the industry will continue on, uneffected........OMG, Activision has a Tony Hawk monopoly! Lets get the online petitions fired up!
You don\'t know what you are talking about here. Before this year Madden outsold Sega\'s football games 15-1. This year it only outsold it 1.5 - 1. Sega did not lower the price with the mindset of immediately dethroning Madden. They knew that was impossible. They just wanted to cut into Madden\'s sales and gain market share. Mission Accomplished. EA took notice and did what they had to in order to stifle competition. This is bad for the industry. The only reason EA ever moved to 3D was competition from Gameday(Gameday was actually the top dog for a couple of years). NFL 2K on the Dreamcast was the best football game on the market when it was released and it caused EA to force their hand and step their game up for Madden 2001. Competition breeds innovation. That is a business FACT. If you effectively eliminate the marketability of your closest competitor you are stifling competition.
Originally posted by EThuggV3
Fact is, EA paid $3 million. Sega, Sony, MS, Nintendo, Midway... any of them could have offered up that much; they obviously didn\'t, and the NFL/PA has no obligation to create or promote \'competition\' in the subgenre of football videogames. No one else has the LOTR license, and most people seemed to love Two Towers. No Harry Potter competition, and every HP fan I know loves EA\'s games
The terms of the deal were not released but it has been said to be closer to a billion dollars than $3 million. I don\'t know where you got that number from.
The LOTR and Harry Potter are considered intellectual property. Things that were created and copywritten. A player\'s name, likeness, and stats are not intellectual property. This is what puts this whole deal on potentially shakey legal ground ESPECIALLY if EA does not sub-license the contract out to other developers.
I am interested to see how Take-Two and Microsoft work around this. They can still put out games that fudge the truth(New England instead of the New England Patriots and #12 instead of Tom Brady) which was done many times during the SNES and NES generations.
-
If EA took all the licenses to use name brand cars in games I\'d set fire to Initech.
Imagine driving the TURBO MONSTER 3000 in Gran Turismo 5.
-
Apparently EA is in talks with the NBA and MLB for similar deals. Which REALLY sucks because NBA Live is GARBAGE compared to ESPN and EA\'s MLB games were so bad they had to change the name to get people to start buying them again.
-
So... it sold poorly? EA can never conceivably learn from past mistakes? EA personally hates gamers and will abuse the fact that they have the license for a whopping (sarcasm) 5 years by making shitty football games that no longer get 9.somthing out of 10\'s in every review?
EA buys up the bulk of franchises when it comes to games and you can tell me with a straight face that all are gems? Think of it this way, Goldeneye, a Rare property, sold millions. I remember how many years it was in the top 10 for sales, but has any Bond game since matched that? Look at the LotR games and name how many of them are easily excellent and how many need definite work. Look how many games there are in just that franchise! EA is hugely responsible for people thinking that games based on franchises are horrible and to be avoided at all costs -- is it any wonder why Riddick was such a huge surprise from reviewers?
Realize what? I\'m not a fan of the Sims, but if EA was to make expansions of their console games, I\'d certainly be very pleased.
They already do, they call them sports titles and they charge 49.99 a pop for them, but that could change very quickly since there isn\'t any real competition to be offered anymore.
Because... wait for it... *deep breath* not everyone likes the same games you like, and many actually like EAs games.
Oh for sure, everyone does like Madden, but only because EA was actually forced to update their games in the face of excellent competition and a competitor willing to go all out on its individual product to compete. Finally, ESPN was becoming a well known property and people were starting to realize Madden isn\'t the end all be all of football. With ESPN finally being sold at a damn reasonable competitive rate, EA got scared and secured a billion dollar contract. What\'s a billion dollars over five years if you\'re the only football game on the market that can be sold as the *official* NFL football game? With minimal updates, cutting more corners with development time, and simply changing names on jerseys, EA can sell Madden 2006-2011 at 65 bucks a pop and never think twice about it. What choice do consumers have when they want a football game with their favorite team\\players? You still think that\'s a good thing?
Better graphics, roster updates and nothing else new in Madden? Guess what, sales indicate the people want that too.
This is probably the most horrible thing anyone has written in regards to videogames and their evolution and uniqueness. Thank God no one truly believes that crap. Otherwise, we never would have gotten what we have all come to know and love as Street Fighter II.
-
I was really angry when I heard about this but then I read this.
GameSpot was told the league put the license up for bid and that EA was among as many as five software publishers competing for it.
Apparently EA wasnt the only one trying to monopolize the sports gaming industry. Wonder who them other 5 publishers are.
-
Originally posted by PSX_J
I was really angry when I heard about this but then I read this.
Apparently EA wasnt the only one trying to monopolize the sports gaming industry. Wonder who them other 5 publishers are.
I was just gonna post something myself about that...... What the hell did you expect them to say NAH THAT WOULD BE MONOPOLIZATIONATIONG (GW Would be proud) of course there gonna try and outbid or they would be the ones looking out
-
See so, you guys can\'t be pissed off at the EA people, you should be more pissed at the NFL for ****ing shit up for you
-
Exactly, it seems to me the NFL might of actually put the offer on the table...not sure of that though. Either way the NFL still sucks for this.
-
but gamespot had an article earlier this year about ea trying to buy the nfl license...and when i think gamespot asked them about it...they stated the story was completely false...
anyway i stated what i had to say and sadly nfl 2k5 will be my last nfl game this gen and next gen...i\'m not picking up madden ever...i was a madden fan once but crossed over a couple of years ago and haven\'t looked back....even if sega does make a non licensed football game...i won\'t cop it,...it\'s just not the same without the real players...
ethugg...espn was waay better than madden this yr..i won\'t go into gameplay because espn and madden both have it...but espn\'s halftime show & post game made madden 05 look like atari 2600 football...madden still show that bulls**t with the cheerleaders at halftime:rolleyes:..and lets not forget sportscenter....fact is every year sega pushed the envelope further & further...while madden did nothing....that halftime show looks just like what you would see on tv...
and graphics? espn\'s models are the best ever...madden\'s..still are little pudgy men...helll go look up a pic of atari\'s 2600 football and you will see where madden got their player models from....
-
Originally posted by Black Samurai
You don\'t know what you are talking about here. Before this year Madden outsold Sega\'s football games 15-1. This year it only outsold it 1.5 - 1. Sega did not lower the price with the mindset of immediately dethroning Madden. They knew that was impossible. They just wanted to cut into Madden\'s sales and gain market share. Mission Accomplished. EA took notice and did what they had to in order to stifle competition. This is bad for the industry. The only reason EA ever moved to 3D was competition from Gameday(Gameday was actually the top dog for a couple of years). NFL 2K on the Dreamcast was the best football game on the market when it was released and it caused EA to force their hand and step their game up for Madden 2001. Competition breeds innovation. That is a business FACT. If you effectively eliminate the marketability of your closest competitor you are stifling competition.
There is no stifling of anything. Sega is free to make a football game. If it is a war of brand names, EA was winning anyway. And those numbers? Sure, if I was wrong, I was wrong I guess. Provided you have a source for that, I\'ll admit it. And if you think EA woulda stuck with 2D just because they started with it all through the lifecycle of Playstation, you\'re just being dense. 3D was an inevitable change, and they weren\'t the only ones to go in at the beginning of PSX\'s life unsure of 3D.
The terms of the deal were not released but it has been said to be closer to a billion dollars than $3 million. I don\'t know where you got that number from.
Sorry, missed a couple zero\'s there, key musta stuck. http://money.cnn.com/2004/12/14/commentary/game_over/column_gaming/ Obviously its not confirmed, but the fact remains, there were multiple companies interested, not just EA. And if it were anyone but EA, I question if you\'d all be so upset.
The LOTR and Harry Potter are considered intellectual property. Things that were created and copywritten. A player\'s name, likeness, and stats are not intellectual property. This is what puts this whole deal on potentially shakey legal ground ESPECIALLY if EA does not sub-license the contract out to other developers.
How so? Where in any law does it say that the NFL/PA can\'t exclusively license their players/teams/stadiums names and likenesses? No where, there is no questionable legal ground, you\'re pulling that out of your ass. A license is a license, regardless of if it\'s an IP or not.
I am interested to see how Take-Two and Microsoft work around this. They can still put out games that fudge the truth(New England instead of the New England Patriots and #12 instead of Tom Brady) which was done many times during the SNES and NES generations. [/B]
Whoa, you mean there\'s a perfectly logical and reasonable alternative? That wasn\'t what you led me to believe...
Originally posted by Ryu
EA buys up the bulk of franchises when it comes to games and you can tell me with a straight face that all are gems?
I didn\'t say that, just as I wouldn\'t say all of Sega\'s/Nintendo\'s/Ubi Soft\'s/Rockstars/Sony\'s/MS\'s etc games are gems.
Think of it this way, Goldeneye, a Rare property, sold millions. I remember how many years it was in the top 10 for sales, but has any Bond game since matched that?[/B]
No, but then again, neither has any other Rare game. Or Time Splitters. See what a silly argument that is?
Look at the LotR games and name how many of them are easily excellent and how many need definite work. Look how many games there are in just that franchise![/B]
I don\'t think any of EA\'s LOTR games need work. In fact, I would say the only bad LOTR games are the ones not made by EA (The Hobbit (sierra) and FOTR (universal int.)
EA is hugely responsible for people thinking that games based on franchises are horrible and to be avoided at all costs -- is it any wonder why Riddick was such a huge surprise from reviewers? [/B]
Catwoman sucked. I know. I\'m sure there are others that aren\'t coming to mind that suck too, but so what? Every company that big has a few stinkers. For the record, I though Riddick was overrated. I\'d rather play LOTR.
They already do, they call them sports titles and they charge 49.99 a pop for them, but that could change very quickly since there isn\'t any real competition to be offered anymore.[/B]
They set a price, you decide with your dollars if it\'s worth the cost. It\'s this amazing thing called capitalism.
Oh for sure, everyone does like Madden, but only because EA was actually forced to update their games in the face of excellent competition and a competitor willing to go all out on its individual product to compete. Finally, ESPN was becoming a well known property and people were starting to realize Madden isn\'t the end all be all of football. With ESPN finally being sold at a damn reasonable competitive rate, EA got scared and secured a billion dollar contract. [/B]
Umm... so a $20 game is \'finally\' a \'reasonable competitive rate\'? If $20 is the only way ESPN is reasonably priced, then it must be lacking. And continued assertions that EA wouldn\'t update Madden without competition are both unprovable, and unfounded. You look at EA\'s past decisions as a business with the brilliant 20/20 hindsight of a gamer who doesn\'t run a videogame company or program games. EA got \'scared\'? I guess the other five companies were just there to witness history being made, eh?
What\'s a billion dollars over five years if you\'re the only football game on the market that can be sold as the *official* NFL football game?[/B]
Well, besides being an inflated speculation, it\'s business as usual. I see no cause for concern.
With minimal updates, cutting more corners with development time, and simply changing names on jerseys, EA can sell Madden 2006-2011 at 65 bucks a pop and never think twice about it.[/B]
Please tell me next weeks NY state lotto numbers, Miss Cleo. I could use some money.
What choice do consumers have when they want a football game with their favorite team\\players? You still think that\'s a good thing?[/B]
The choice to not buy it. Or to buy it. And yes, I think that\'s a great thing. It is the very essance of people having the power to make decisions in a free market with their money. If everyone who\'s so outraged boycotts, EA will be forced to rethink doing this again. But wait... a whole 5 years without a new game that\'s the same every year anyway, what am I thinking? You all talk a good game about principle from your chairs, behind your keyboards, but I doubt any of you will do anything more than bitch and moan while eventually relenting and buying or at least renting Madden.
This is probably the most horrible thing anyone has written in regards to videogames and their evolution and uniqueness. Thank God no one truly believes that crap. Otherwise, we never would have gotten what we have all come to know and love as Street Fighter II. [/B]
I believe it, and most people are too apathetic to believe the opposite. No offense Ryu, I know you love SFII, obviously, but I could care less about it. I wouldn\'t care if we never got it. I find your choice of example amusing though; you diss EA for the lack of innovation, and then point to a game that\'s been milked for over a decade, and hey... it\'s still 2D even!
-
Sorry, missed a couple zero\'s there, key musta stuck. http://money.cnn.com/2004/12/14/com.../column_gaming/ Obviously its not confirmed, but the fact remains, there were multiple companies interested, not just EA. And if it were anyone but EA, I question if you\'d all be so upset.
I think it depends. Madden has become known for being nothing but a cookie cutter game over the years -- a package at 50 bucks of nothing but roster updates with the Madden brand name behind it. That difference is becoming much more apparent to the many Madden loving members of this board, many of whom are not happy with this outcome. I think I\'d be happy if a relative unknown acquired it and started to put out something truly original. With EA, we know we\'ll get another Madden. Whether that\'s a good thing or not really depends as, just like you said, some people don\'t want improvements or new features -- but there has to be a reason why the Best Sports Game category on Gamespot contains ESPN NFL 2K5 and not Madden 2K5.
I didn\'t say that, just as I wouldn\'t say all of Sega\'s/Nintendo\'s/Ubi Soft\'s/Rockstars/Sony\'s/MS\'s etc games are gems.
The point was that with EA, there\'s a VERY high probability that without any real competition, this series can go down the drain even further.
I don\'t think any of EA\'s LOTR games need work. In fact, I would say the only bad LOTR games are the ones not made by EA (The Hobbit (sierra) and FOTR (universal int.)
Third Age, Return of the King (which is somehow worse compared to Two Towers), and Battle for Middile Earth are all in need of some serious work. These games could have easily been 9.0 or better with just a few changes.
Catwoman sucked. I know. I\'m sure there are others that aren\'t coming to mind that suck too, but so what? Every company that big has a few stinkers. For the record, I though Riddick was overrated. I\'d rather play LOTR.
But which LotR? There\'s so many that the market is now overflowing with them. RPG, RTS, action -- which do you prefer to Riddick? Which one can even match the production values and originality in design compared to Riddick? At the very least, Riddick took some original ideas and incorporated them into the license and created something truly unique while all of the LotR games are just fresh wrapping on old ideas. That\'s what EA is all about, but you think that\'s great and no one wants originality so no wonder why you don\'t see or care for that.
They set a price, you decide with your dollars if it\'s worth the cost. It\'s this amazing thing called capitalism.
Capitalism thrives off competition. That\'s what I want. Without competition, companies don\'t bother to change their products or try out new ideas. Why take the risk? If people like you will continue to buy the same stuff every year who thinks that\'s a great idea, why bother coming up with something great? Just ask Nintendo how that\'s worked out for them with the GB, GBC, and GBA. Yet you\'re over there in console discussion talking about how Sony is ushering in the wave of the future with the PSP and Nintendo is lacking with the DS? Why when the DS should be the perfect instrument for your mentality.
Umm... so a $20 game is \'finally\' a \'reasonable competitive rate\'?
When I said \'rate,\' I was referring to the sales ratio, not to the price of the games. Like BS said, it was 15:1, now it\'s more like 1.5:1 with ESPN actually outselling Madden on the Xbox last I heard. That\'s very important.
You look at EA\'s past decisions as a business with the brilliant 20/20 hindsight of a gamer who doesn\'t run a videogame company or program games. EA got \'scared\'? I guess the other five companies were just there to witness history being made, eh?
If EA won the bid, they obviously had a lot more to lose then anyone else. Companies don\'t blow a billion dollars unless they\'re desperately trying to gain and dominate mindshare. Ask Microsoft.
You all talk a good game about principle from your chairs, behind your keyboards, but I doubt any of you will do anything more than bitch and moan while eventually relenting and buying or at least renting Madden.
Heh, as if it isn\'t our right to do that? We have every right to be outraged or upset and to bitch and moan on a public message board if we so choose, it\'s not up to you to criticize us for doing that. It\'s not like this would affect you anyways as you\'d probably just download and burn it anyways, right Thugg? Arrrrr me matey, right? ;)
I find your choice of example amusing though; you diss EA for the lack of innovation, and then point to a game that\'s been milked for over a decade, and hey... it\'s still 2D even!
I used Street Fighter II in the strictest sense as in the difference between the original game and its sequal, which is huge. If you want, we can compare Metal Gear Solid to Metal Gear Solid 2 if you wish. With your line of thinking, MGS on Bleem SHOULD have been MGS2. You would find that acceptable somehow. You are really comfortable with that thinking? Typical EA thinking?
-
The only football game I played was Madden anyway
-
Originally posted by Ryu
I think it depends. Madden has become known for being nothing but a cookie cutter game over the years -- a package at 50 bucks of nothing but roster updates with the Madden brand name behind it. That difference is becoming much more apparent to the many Madden loving members of this board, many of whom are not happy with this outcome. I think I\'d be happy if a relative unknown acquired it and started to put out something truly original. With EA, we know we\'ll get another Madden. Whether that\'s a good thing or not really depends as, just like you said, some people don\'t want improvements or new features -- but there has to be a reason why the Best Sports Game category on Gamespot contains ESPN NFL 2K5 and not Madden 2K5.
Because Gamespot, like you, me and everyone here, has their own opinion. You\'ll have to forgive me, but the opinions of others on something as subjective as the quality of a game (or movie, album, painting, etc) mean very little compared to my own. I don\'t think Madden is a better game, I don\'t play Madden, I love Sega and know that 2K/ESPN series has been the best sports games on the market by word of mouth (and lets not forget, I\'m a graphics-whore). But what it comes down to is this: not through online petitions, not through accusations, not through forum rants; but with your dollars, when you enter the store - that is the only productive way to react to this deal. Everyone has a choice. Whether it is between two similar products, or to get/not get the sole offering availible, we all have an option. Ranting how EA is evil, turning this into a bigger event than it is, and trying to orchestrate boycotts (not all specifically apply to you); these are silly wastes of time.
Besides, did you not see the beautiful shot of Blitz: Playmakers over at IGN (http://sports.ign.com/articles/572/572886p1.html)? I think Sega/VC/TT can manage a similar unlicensed route with its superior visuals and gameplay, and manage to lose minimal ground against Madden with the loss of the license. /you say people are finally figuring out that Sega is making a better game; why do you assume that everyone will ignore this fact when Sega unleashes whatever football game it decides on?
Two more points I haven\'t heart much of: 1) EA can still farm out the license, can\'t they? They\'ll just be getting extra money. 2) Since we\'re talking so much about innovation, and EA\'s lack of it, can you explain just how innovative a football game could be? I mean, the game itself isn\'t exactly changing. How many untapped ideas are there besides \'gee, lets make it prettier\'?
The point was that with EA, there\'s a VERY high probability that without any real competition, this series can go down the drain even further.[/B]
Well, I think we should give them a chance. They just inked the deal, lets see how the next game goes before we make these kinds of calls, eh? Out of fairness?
Third Age, Return of the King (which is somehow worse compared to Two Towers), and Battle for Middile Earth are all in need of some serious work. These games could have easily been 9.0 or better with just a few changes.[/B]
But instead they are merely 8.somethings, which is horrible, right? Well, Third Age is a bit lower. Ironically, thats the one I enjy most.
But which LotR? There\'s so many that the market is now overflowing with them. RPG, RTS, action -- which do you prefer to Riddick?[/B]
Third Age.
Which one can even match the production values and originality in design compared to Riddick? At the very least, Riddick took some original ideas and incorporated them into the license and created something truly unique while all of the LotR games are just fresh wrapping on old ideas.[/B]
Yes, I won\'t disagree, but you aren\'t going to argue they are bad games, are you? Personally, I don\'t care for Riddick because of its genre.
That\'s what EA is all about, but you think that\'s great and no one wants originality so no wonder why you don\'t see or care for that.[/B]
Originality is fine. But when I get decent or even great games that are fun coming from EA, I\'m not going to bitch because I\'ve decided to dwell of the possibilities of what could be. If the game is bad (Catwoman, as an easy example) yea, I\'ll get annoyed. When I\'m getting games that are above average (as in, better than 51% of the other games out there), I don\'t see a reason to get worked up.
Capitalism thrives off competition. That\'s what I want. Without competition, companies don\'t bother to change their products or try out new ideas. Why take the risk? If people like you will continue to buy the same stuff every year who thinks that\'s a great idea, why bother coming up with something great?[/B]
EA has competition. Blitz Hitmakers, ESPN NCAA, etc. You\'re acting like there are no other football games, and that is not the case.
Just ask Nintendo how that\'s worked out for them with the GB, GBC, and GBA. Yet you\'re over there in console discussion talking about how Sony is ushering in the wave of the future with the PSP and Nintendo is lacking with the DS? Why when the DS should be the perfect instrument for your mentality.[/B]
If DS was the only game in town, it would suffice and I would yield to Nintendo\'s foot dragging. But as a consumer, I have the choice not to as well.
When I said \'rate,\' I was referring to the sales ratio, not to the price of the games. Like BS said, it was 15:1, now it\'s more like 1.5:1 with ESPN actually outselling Madden on the Xbox last I heard. That\'s very important.[/B]
I know what you meant. And I\'ll even take you word for it, since you both are saying this, that ESPN did that good. I hadn\'t thought it did.
If EA won the bid, they obviously had a lot more to lose then anyone else. Companies don\'t blow a billion dollars unless they\'re desperately trying to gain and dominate mindshare. Ask Microsoft.[/B]
I really wish you\'d stop using the billion dollar figure. And we both know I love MS. ;)
Heh, as if it isn\'t our right to do that? We have every right to be outraged or upset and to bitch and moan on a public message board if we so choose, it\'s not up to you to criticize us for doing that. It\'s not like this would affect you anyways as you\'d probably just download and burn it anyways, right Thugg? Arrrrr me matey, right? ;)[/B]
Yea, but its also my right to call you a bunch of nerds for getting so worked up over it. :p I don\'t know what you\'re insinuating there. Are you calling me a pirate? *adjusts halo*
I used Street Fighter II in the strictest sense as in the difference between the original game and its sequal, which is huge. If you want, we can compare Metal Gear Solid to Metal Gear Solid 2 if you wish. With your line of thinking, MGS on Bleem SHOULD have been MGS2. You would find that acceptable somehow. You are really comfortable with that thinking? Typical EA thinking? [/B]
Well... MGS on Bleem certainly would have sucked less... oh Oh OH! *runs*
I\'m perfectly okay not with \'typical EA thinking\' as you characterize it, but with letting the market work things out and \'voting\' with your dollars as opposed to calling companies silly names and giving myself a headache over such things.
-
Originally posted by EThuggV3
There is no stifling of anything. Sega is free to make a football game. If it is a war of brand names, EA was winning anyway. And those numbers? Sure, if I was wrong, I was wrong I guess. Provided you have a source for that, I\'ll admit it. And if you think EA woulda stuck with 2D just because they started with it all through the lifecycle of Playstation, you\'re just being dense. 3D was an inevitable change, and they weren\'t the only ones to go in at the beginning of PSX\'s life unsure of 3D.
When you take away a key selling point for any competing product than you are trying to stifle competition. Say we have two competing lemonade stands. We both have the same exact recipe and get the same amount of traffic to our stand. If I were to go out and buy all of the available sugar, you would have to get a poor quality substitute and your product would suffer leading to more people bypassing your stand to come to mine. That is how you stifle competition. When you eventually close shop I have a monopoly on the area and can charge what ever I want for the product.
As for 3D, Tiburon admitted that the success of Gameday forced them to go 3D earlier than they expected to and that they had to step the quality of their game up if they wanted to regain the market. So it is not as if I am making stuff up.
Originally posted by EThuggV3
Sorry, missed a couple zero\'s there, key musta stuck. http://money.cnn.com/2004/12/14/commentary/game_over/column_gaming/ Obviously its not confirmed, but the fact remains, there were multiple companies interested, not just EA. And if it were anyone but EA, I question if you\'d all be so upset.
I would STILL be upset. The reason the football games are so good now is because of the competition. All you have to do is look at the NBA Live and the old Triple Play franchises to see how the lack of competition kills quality.
Originally posted by EThuggV3
How so? Where in any law does it say that the NFL/PA can\'t exclusively license their players/teams/stadiums names and likenesses? No where, there is no questionable legal ground, you\'re pulling that out of your ass. A license is a license, regardless of if it\'s an IP or not.
They DO have the right to exclusively license out their players/teams/stadiums. However, when it comes to a player\'s name, stats, and likeness it can be argued that they are facts so they can not be exclusively licensed. I just read a story about the EA-NFLPA agreement that said a similar case happened in Japan with Konami and the Japanese Pro Baseball League. Konami had exclusive rights to the names, stats, and likenesses but trouble surfaced when they would not sub-license those rights to other developers.
Originally posted by EThuggV3
Whoa, you mean there\'s a perfectly logical and reasonable alternative? That wasn\'t what you led me to believe...
It is the ONLY alternative to not making football games anymore. I don\'t know where I said that they could not make games anymore.
-
You\'re all stealing my way of quoting and replying die more.
-
Originally posted by Black Samurai
When you take away a key selling point for any competing product than you are trying to stifle competition. Say we have two competing lemonade stands. We both have the same exact recipe and get the same amount of traffic to our stand. If I were to go out and buy all of the available sugar, you would have to get a poor quality substitute and your product would suffer leading to more people bypassing your stand to come to mine. That is how you stifle competition. When you eventually close shop I have a monopoly on the area and can charge what ever I want for the product.
You can use a sugar substitute, and no one will know the difference. And the EA lemon stand still has to compete with the bar, the coffee house, etc down the street. The thing you gues are forgetting is, NFL licensed football games specifically aren\'t a genre, or even a subgenre, unto themselves.
As for 3D, Tiburon admitted that the success of Gameday forced them to go 3D earlier than they expected to and that they had to step the quality of their game up if they wanted to regain the market. So it is not as if I am making stuff up.
Reread what you just said. Earlier than they expected, hence, they would have gone 3D eventually, by your own admission. They had to do it sooner, sure, but it\'s not like they wouldn\'t have done it eventually.
I would STILL be upset. The reason the football games are so good now is because of the competition. All you have to do is look at the NBA Live and the old Triple Play franchises to see how the lack of competition kills quality.
Well, at least you\'re consistant. :)
They DO have the right to exclusively license out their players/teams/stadiums. However, when it comes to a player\'s name, stats, and likeness it can be argued that they are facts so they can not be exclusively licensed. I just read a story about the EA-NFLPA agreement that said a similar case happened in Japan with Konami and the Japanese Pro Baseball League. Konami had exclusive rights to the names, stats, and likenesses but trouble surfaced when they would not sub-license those rights to other developers.
Trouble... in Japan. When did Japanese laws become US laws? You\'d have to have a pretty damn good lawyer to convince a judge that a football game falls under the scope of free speech/press and that the player names/stadiums are fair game - which is about the only grounds you could try to fight this on that I can think of. The NFLPA represents the players and indeed, speaks for them, so it\'s like the players themselves agreed, no?
It is the ONLY alternative to not making football games anymore. I don\'t know where I said that they could not make games anymore.
When you suggest there\'s a monopoly, and claim stifling of competition, you are claiming there is no alternative. By you\'re own admission this is an alternative, hence, nothing has been stifled. Sega can continue innovating and, the way I see it, is free\'d from the rules/confines of the NFL license. If they were trying to create something, this can only make the game better.
-
the only alternative for sega is to make a college game or as some others have mentioned afl or cfl..in which the latter would fail miserably....i\'m not into college so that\'s out for me...and i won\'t buy a nfl game without the real players...that\'s just me..
is it possisble for ea to charge a fee to use the license?..possilbly..but i don\'t see EA doin that as they want to be the ONLY one producing football games...last option is that sega gets gobbled up by EA and makes football games for them..which would really be bad...
while ethugg likes to think some here are overexaggerating, i\'m a little pissed, but i\'m not losin any sleep over it...it\'s just that sega imo was making some truly innovative strides this year in football...and i know it\'s cosmetic, but i didn\'t think we\'d get a halftime show or post game this generation of the caliber we\'ve seen in espn... truly amazing....madden has not done it yet..and trust if it wasn\'t for sega puttin heat on that ass..ea wouldn\'t have done anything to madden in the last few yrs...(which imo madden hasn\'t advanced at all if only slightly)
now that competiveness is gone and with no-one to compete against,...EA will continue to churn basically more replica\'s of 2005 with updated rosters and nothing more...
-
Jbean said on the other forums (madden league) that the NFL gave the rights to the highest bidder. Not sure how credible his source was but if I were EA and Sega decided to bid for the rights, I would bid higher since EA has a bunch more money.
I still think this is BS.
-
Originally posted by Viper_Fujax
Jbean said on the other forums (madden league) that the NFL gave the rights to the highest bidder. Not sure how credible his source was but if I were EA and Sega decided to bid for the rights, I would bid higher since EA has a bunch more money.
I still think this is BS.
yea i guess ultimately the one entity to be pissed at would be the nfl for putting up the bids in the first place...without it, we\'d still see EA and Sega fight for the crown...with football bein so popular as it is i just don\'t feel one developer should have all the rights to it....whether it\'s sega or EA...
-
According to an article on TXB (I\'m too lazy to get the link) seperate deals were reached with the NFL/NFLPA and they were definitely put up to bid on. EA, like it or not, had to buy the rights or Sega/someone else woulda had exclusive rights.
-
so NFL is to blame, and not EA?
*gasp*
-
EA is still buying out software companies anyway, so it\'s not really a *gasp* situation. EA sucks, nonetheless...
-
making excuses now, eh?
-
The NFL i guess is to blame and they dont really know the gaming industry - that or they dont care. Of course if i had a well developed company id hope that nobody cashed in on the deal but that happening is like hoping that nobody will grab a dollar or two when an ATM starts ejecting money.
-
EA sucks.
Am I too late?
-
Ask mm, he knows everything...
-
Originally posted by EviscerationX
Ask mm, he knows everything...
:laughing:...and i agree with nicon in the sense that maybe the nfl doesn\'t understand the industry...it\'s like the ny times doing a review for metal gear solid3 or res evil...surely you wouldn\'t trust that review,..because they don\'t have a clue...the same applies here...
-
Originally posted by mm
making excuses now, eh?
Will remember that the next time you whine and complain about the evil MS.