Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Entertainment Games

NBA Rejects EA Deal 219

Posted by Zonk from the one-sports-league-does-the-right-thing dept.
PuppiesOnAcid writes "Although the NFL buckled under EA's mighty stronghold in the video game football market (Madden), the NBA has chosen to reject EA's exclusive rights deal. Jon Robinson explains, 'One of the reasons is that the NBA Live series simply doesn't have a stranglehold on the market the way Madden has for years, so by signing an exclusive deal with EA, the NBA would actually be losing money.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NBA Rejects EA Deal More

NBA Rejects EA Deal

Comments Filter:

  • Too wild (Score:5, Funny)

    by Steve Embalmer ( 783552 ) on Wednesday December 22, 2004 @01:53PM (#11161044)
    The NBA probably just couldn't handle the violent level of EA's tough corporate culture.

  • EA probably allowed players to go into the stands. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 22, 2004 @01:56PM (#11161078)
    So they can beat up the fans.

    NBA said "No, that's way too realistic."

  • EA games are not the best for BBall. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by CmdrObvious ( 680619 ) on Wednesday December 22, 2004 @01:57PM (#11161094)
    While Madden is the disputed leader of all NFL games, with this being the only year in a while where there actually was compition (ESPN Football), the truth of the matter is EA's NBA games are not that good. Plus, the NBA has a much greater numer of games that are NBA lisenced, such as NBA JAM, Ballers, Street(I know its EA, but still). I totally agree it doesnt make sense for the NBA to sign an exclusive deal with EA.

  • No worries about this with NHL (Score:5, Funny)

    by AtariAmarok ( 451306 ) on Wednesday December 22, 2004 @01:58PM (#11161095)
    No worries about this happening with the NHL. Pro hockey does not exist OUTSIDE of videogames at this point!

    • Re:No worries about this with NHL (Score:5, Funny)

      by ShelbyCobra ( 134614 ) on Wednesday December 22, 2004 @02:01PM (#11161129)
      Which brings up an interesting point, will NHL 2004 exist as if there had been a real hockey season, or will it showcase all of the NHL's big stars playing for european teams to pay the bills and stay in mental and physical shape?

      • Re:No worries about this with NHL (Score:4, Interesting)

        by TopShelf ( 92521 ) on Wednesday December 22, 2004 @02:08PM (#11161208) Homepage Journal
        They should include bonus rinks and jerseys to reflect the exhibition games these guys are playing. Heck, you could even include Gary Bettman and Bob Goodenow as players so you can have them duke it out at center ice. It would be more entertaining than watching this total lack of negotiation that seems to be going on...

      • It will probably just be players crying about how unfair a 6.5 million dollar per year salary is.
        • I read an article not long ago that claimed the owners were making more money off the rinks renting "open ice" to events than they were making playing NHL games because of the player overhead...
      • Maybe it'll just be a fixed camera outside a rink, with the option to zoom in and look at the padlock on the doors... or better yet, you go inside, and the Ice Capades are performing.

        Either way, maybe Winter 2004/5 is the season of the professional zambonie driver simulator. Gotta make the money somehow!
      • The 2004 games have already been released. They play as normal. Im interested in how 2005 games will be, whether they will include europe stats and such in player profiles and if they will mention the lockout- if it ever ends.
    • Sarcasm on:
      It's nice to note though that the hockey players have found other [www.ctv.ca] ways to suppliment their incomes
      Sarcasm off:

  • Praise Jebus (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jokell82 ( 536447 ) on Wednesday December 22, 2004 @01:58PM (#11161099) Homepage
    At least the NBA had the smarts to know that many games with their name on it is better than a single one. It can only lead to more sales of games with the NBA license. Forcing someone to buy a particular game can only lead to resentment for either of the creators (NBA/NFL/whatever and the game maker alike).

    Besides, the Sega Sports series (now sold as ESPN games) has been better than EA for a few years now.
    • eh no, it forces no one to do or buy anything, it just means the NBA are free to hawk their brand name to multiple vendors. Short term this might generate more revenue for them but will also dilute their brand and associate them with some crap products.

    • Forcing someone to buy a particular game can only lead to resentment for either of the creators

      I'm not sure what you mean by "forcing" unless you are living in some Stalinist geography where the government makes people buy games or something.

      Regarding your thesis on outcomes, are you sure there is only one possible outcome?

      What if they make something people like a lot? What would happen then?

    • Re:Praise Jebus (Score:2, Insightful)

      by PeterFranks ( 523503 )
      No... the only reason the NBA made this decision is because otherwise they'd lose money. They didn't do this out of concern for some high ideal. It all comes down to money.

  • The reasoning is still bad (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PoderOmega ( 677170 ) on Wednesday December 22, 2004 @01:59PM (#11161109)
    They rejected it because it would not have made them enough money. If it did, they would sell in a heartbeat. The NBA doesn't care about our selection, our opinions, especially when will buy it anyway. Really, how many people are going to say "I'm not buying Madden 20xx because EA sucks!!" Probably not enough to impact anything.
    • Really, how many people are going to say "I'm not buying Madden 20xx because EA sucks!!" Probably not enough to impact anything.

      I'm not buying it, but not for that reason. The Sega ESPN games are much better in my opinion, so I would usually buy them over Madden. However, with this new deal, I will probably skip out on both next year - leading to less money for ALL parties (including the NFL). Somehow I doubt I'm the only one who feels this way...

    • Re:The reasoning is still bad (Score:4, Interesting)

      by gcaseye6677 ( 694805 ) on Wednesday December 22, 2004 @02:15PM (#11161277)
      That's how business works. Companies enter into agreements with other companies if they think it will make them more money. The decision to enter into a deal is made by numbers, not politics or ideals. Public opinion can be a factor, but ultimately the company will select the option that will be most profitable for them. There's no other way to run a business, if you want to stay in business.

      • ...ultimately the company will select the option that will be most profitable for them.

        Indeed, these days a large company will typically select the option that will be most profitable in the short term for them. Does the plan doom them in the long run? So what! Will the plan given another company (EA) more control over them, seriously hampering future options and profits? The CEO will be long gone.

        The NFL made a stupid decision; they may make more money for the next few years, but they've handed con

        • This is a disturbing trend in many companies. But I think the blame ultimately lies with investors, as the board and the execs can only do what they are allowed to by the stockholders. When investors are looking to make a quick buck and then dump the stock, executives are encouraged to do what you just described and the company will likely face bankruptcy in the future. Investors looking for long term value should choose companies that have responsible boards, where the common stockholders' wishes are respe
        • I'm sure the NFL owners will be kicking themselves and come begging for you to rescue them with your brilliant financial sense when the league goes completely bankrupt next year
        • Indeed, these days a large company will typically select the option that will be most profitable in the short term for them. Does the plan doom them in the long run? So what!

          You can't hold the CEO 100% responsible for this type of attitude. Many times the corporate management does see the folly in a particular course of action, but takes it anyway. This is because the shareholders are generally stupid creatures and will sue the ass off the board of directors if they do anything that goes against what the

      • Public opinion can be a factor, but ultimately the company will select the option that will be most profitable for them. There's no other way to run a business, if you want to stay in business.

        There's a difference between making a profit and staying and business, and maximizing your profits to the exclusion of all else. I believe there are many ways to run a profitable business.

    • Hahaha. How often when you release a product to the market do you worry about anything *other* than making money.

      The NBA's job is to not make people happy and feel good about themselves. It's to make money. Hi, and welcome to reality.
    • Me. I have never liked the Madden series. Overrated. The NFL2K series was a serious challenger, and had to be eliminated. Resistance is futile, you will be assimi.....merged with and entered into exclusive deals with. The corporate takeover of America is complete.
    • That's a little unfair. They do the right thing and turn EA down and just because some guy at ign speculates that one of the reasons was based on how much money they would get you extrapolate that that must have been the only reason and you criticize them.
  • The NBA made a good decision, I believe, by not going with EA's monopolistic deal. As much as EA has been criticized lately for their practices, I'd wonder just what advantage the NFL, or anyone else, could get out of an exclusive contract with such a company. What could possibly be the upshot for the NFL?

    That said, I'd be a lot more upset about the aforementioned NFL deal if it meant we'd only see Madden games for one platform. That's not going to happen anytime soon, I don't think. But imagine a day

    • Re:Good call (Score:4, Insightful)

      by SoTuA ( 683507 ) on Wednesday December 22, 2004 @02:25PM (#11161374)
      What could possibly be the upshot for the NFL?

      Why, an obscenely high quantity of money, of course! You think an exclusive license goes for the same money a plain-vanilla license to use the names and such goes for? Think again.

      That said, I'd be a lot more upset about the aforementioned NFL deal if it meant we'd only see Madden games for one platform. That's not going to happen anytime soon, I don't think. But imagine a day when the only place you might find "official" NFL or NBA games would be the PSn, and all the other consoles would have brand-x football and basketball games.

      _If the game in itself is good_, I don't see how upsetting it would be to have a player named "Joe Sixpack" instead of "Joe Andruzzi".

      • _If the game in itself is good_, I don't see how upsetting it would be to have a player named "Joe Sixpack" instead of "Joe Andruzzi".

        I am a big fan of the NBA console games, and having real teams/players is vitally important, IMO. Yes, the majority of the fun is in the game play, in setting up your offense, getting guys to move without the ball, hitting open Js, etc. But a large part of the fun is in knowing these players. It makes the game more interesting in part because you know their real-life attr

  • Thats all this is. I actually find it disgusting that the NFL signed abord. Lets give into one corporation to try to make money rather then allow all game producing companies to potentially make a sports game involving our league. Well I can tell you this much. I don't like Madden's voice so I won't be picking up the next EA NFL game.
    • Well this is how the NFL has traditionally done business. They sign exclusive rights dealsm and take in big dollars. This is one of the reasons why the NFL is not hurting for $$.
    • I can tell you that I, for one, will not be buying ANY EA sports titles for the next 5 years. Furthermore, if I receive any as a gift, I will return them.

      I simply refuse to support these strong-armed tactics from EA. That corporation is rife with slimeballs. Just take a look at what they're doing to their employees - they're going to be sued over some of their practices. http://www.gamespot.com/news/2004/11/11/news_6112 9 98.html [gamespot.com] If they can't be trusted to treat their own employees with respect, I certain

  • Oh, the poor, poor NBA (Score:3, Funny)

    by Neil Blender ( 555885 ) <neilblender@gmail.com> on Wednesday December 22, 2004 @02:05PM (#11161182)
    I guess high priced tickets, concessions and TV contracts just aren't enough to cover things like Kevin Garnets 11 year $305 million salary.

  • Buckled under? (Score:5, Funny)

    by SetupWeasel ( 54062 ) on Wednesday December 22, 2004 @02:06PM (#11161185) Homepage
    The NFL was not crushed by EA's awesome might. EA decided to pay the NFL an ungodly amount of money for exclusive use of properties that they own. The only thing the NFL cares about is money. It doesn't matter to them what the ESPN game will do. It doesn't matter to them how powerful EA is.

    You don't need an NFL licence to make a good football game. I think they should make a "Historical World Leaders Football 2K6," because I want to hear the phrase "Zone Blitzkrieg."
    • Oh, man, this is a flash game waiting to happen...Choose your offensive and defensive coordinators from a list of historical figures, each of which has a distinct play style. Hitler as a defensive coordinator: always blitz. Always. Ghandi as an offensive coordinator: go for the least confrontational play possible (probably short screens). Combine that with some really bent inter-play video, and you've got yourself a hit.
    • Similar situation with DirectTV paying the NFL a large sum of money to televise the NFL's Sunday Ticket package exclusively on DirectTV. I can get every other league package on my cable setup except the NFL and they just re-upped for five more years.

      Fantasy football fans can feel the pain..

  • Um, no (Score:2, Interesting)

    by theVP ( 835556 )
    EA has already said that no bid ever took place. They contacted IGN and told them that they never made a bid for it. http://sports.ign.com/articles/575/575019p1.html [ign.com] Might I also add that this is a rumor based on a rumor based on "sources"

  • NFL WANTED an Exclusivity Deal (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 22, 2004 @02:08PM (#11161212)
    The NFL themselves decided they wanted an exclusivity contract with a publisher. EA merely bid and won. What the hell do you expect them to do when an NFL branded game is one of their best selling titles? Sit on their asses and let someone else get the license so they can't make one of their best selling titles?

    As for 'prices going up' - prices have come DOWN in years. Video game publishers only see a portion of that $50 - they get about $30. Lower prices and it's the brick and mortar stores who suffer. The ESPN sports titles at $20 were probably losing money, and most likely just a means to undercut the market and hurt the competition, and lure in consumers to a new brand that they could jack the price back up to $50. Your first couple hits are cheap... then when they've lured you away they start charging full price.

    $50 has been the 'sweet spot' that will sell, consumers generally balk at $60 or higher.
    • That's exactly what I was going to say. I wonder why PuppiesOnAcid likes spreading lies?

      Perhaps he/she wants people to believe EA is the next Microsoft. EA might be evil, but there is no reason to lie about the EA/NFL situation.
    • About the price issue, I also agree.

      Weren't the hot N64 titles, at their price, originally priced at $69.99 or higher?

      $50 is a good medium for hot titles like Madden.
      • when nintendo had price control over the market (eg: they were only competing with sega) Games varied in price from $65-$100 on titles, and thosae prices were all the way back to SNES days, Square games like Chrono Trigger come to mind as an example of a $100 game. Remeber back then carts were using something like $20-40 worth of silicon to store all the data. nowadays you can practically use commodity grade flash memory chips instead of custom read only memory chips nintendo has been using.
        I mean if they
  • How do you know it's not the NFL that's screwing EA? For example, if hypothetically EA paid the NFL 100 billion dollars for the licensing rights, then one would argue that it was hardly the NFL's "buckling."

    At the end of the day, the NFL was getting X money from EA and Y from others before the deal. the NFL decided that the deal that EA put on the table was worth more than X+Y or they wouldn't have gone for it. EA figures their additional revenues will make up for the additional licensing fees, but cer

  • The NBA has no reason to be afraid of EA. It has Ron Artest on its side (or did until it suspended him for attacking fans in the stands).
    • The NBA has no reason to be afraid of EA. It has Ron Artest on its side (or did until it suspended him for attacking fans in the stands).

      1) What's more, they have Shawn Kemp's kids, the largest voting block this side of AARP.

      2) Better, they have the Pistons' season ticket holders and the rest of the Michigan State Pen.

      3) Not to mention Kobe Bryant for p1$$ing them off.

  • I heard the deal was rejected because EA allows players to defend... mush too unrealistic in the NBA's eyes.

  • EA, NBC: No matter who wins, word usage loses (Score:4, Funny)

    by AEton ( 654737 ) on Wednesday December 22, 2004 @02:22PM (#11161352)
    From article summary: "Although the NFL buckled under EA's mighty stronghold..."

    Main Entry: strong-hold
    Pronunciation: 'stro[ng]-"hOld
    Function: noun
    1 : a fortified place
    2 a : a place of security or survival <one of the last strongholds of the ancient Gaelic language -- George Holmes> b : a place dominated by a particular group or marked by a particular characteristic <a Republican stronghold> <strongholds of snobbery -- Lionel Trilling>

    EA won the match by camping! Losers!

    (Later in the article summary the word 'stranglehold' is correctly quoted. Was submitter going for variety with the use of nonsynonyms?)
  • If I was a game developer for any sport I would definitely build in the ability to download player and team names as well as graphics/logo's from the web. Then just leave it to a sport geek with too much time on their hands to make the data available for free. Doesn't this seem like a no brainer given consoles are connected to the web somewhat now, but more so down the line in the next generation?
    • If I was a game developer for any sport I would definitely build in the ability to download player and team names as well as graphics/logo's from the web

      Many do, through XBOX Live or PS2's equivalent, but you have to go through their site. That is, you can't just type in a URL. (My only experience here is through XBOX, btw.) Once they have a means to let the end user enter a URL your theory would work, but I wouldn't be surprised if such actions (allowing the user to specify where to navigate) was proh

      • I have a USB drive for my PS2 that lets me download saved games and transfer them over to a memory card. There are also devices to allow memory cards to be accessed on the computer. Easy way to load in say a player list.
      • Actually, I would be surprised if it was prohibited. For once, "we" have corporations on our side. EA's got the license, but I'm quite sure ESPN/Sega wants to make money by continuing their 2k* football franchise. It's very much in their interest, then, to make player created rosters available through Live!.

        Then it's just a question of whether EA has the desire and the cash to make MS prevent other video game makers from doing such a thing. It's one thing for EA to convince MS to set up a service such that

  • PuppiesOnAcid is SPREADING LIES (Score:5, Informative)

    by pappy97 ( 784268 ) on Wednesday December 22, 2004 @02:30PM (#11161431)
    "Although the NFL buckled under EA's mighty stronghold in the video game football market (Madden)"

    This statement is not true. The NFL solicitied bids for video game exclusivity. The NFL now is preferring to do everything they possibly can with exclusive deals.

    I don't know how Slashdotters allow people like PuppiesOnAcid to spread such lies.
  • The NFL offered the exclusive license. EA came up with the highest bid.

  • That's too bad... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by lpangelrob2 ( 721920 ) on Wednesday December 22, 2004 @02:36PM (#11161500) Journal
    ...I eagerly await any remake of the best basketball game I ever owned [gamespot.com].

    Might I also mention it was the only basketball game I ever owned? But it had the best halftime shows...

  • The NBA is basically a marketing unit of Nike. Maybe EA and Nike can cut a deal.

    In There [there.com], you could buy Nike products for your online avatar. With real money. Apply that thinking to a NBA/Nike/EA deal, and you really have something. "Buy Nike Air Jordans and your players can jump higher!"

    (Whatever happened to Michael Jordan, anyway?)

Slashdot Top Deals

Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man -- who has no gills. -- Ambrose Bierce

Close