I actually just got done writing a story about EA's acquisitions, pegged to the Take-Two deal today with MLB. I have to admit I feel sort of mixed about EA and its exclusive deals.

On the one hand, Madden has always been a pretty good game -- the NFL license could have been taken over by a publisher of complete schlock. Plus, I'm skeptical of the argument that EA will stop innovating -- they have to give us a reason to pay $50 for the darn thing each year, and a reason to spend our money on "Madden" instead of, say, "Halo."

On the other hand, I think if the price of an NFL game goes up much further, I'll have to start buying it every three years, instead of just every other year.

Posted by: rob.weir on January 25, 2005 02:10 PM

I guess this is a tough question to answer. Hence the amount of comments so far.

I'm not an expert in futurology, neither I have experience in the business but this is a topic that interests me and I'll say my humble thoughts.

For now I think EA is and will be bad for the electronic entertainment industry. But I'm not sure and I find reasons to think the opposite too.

EA's goal is make cash, like any other company. Their ways to do that is what puts them in a different situation. They buy many studios, they do very agressive marketing and they never or let's say very rarely go for try to get awards or game of the year votes.

Some studios have been vanished after being bought. Others are still ok but with higher marketing budget like Criterion as an example.
The Sims had a good ally in EA too. So I can't surely confirm all EA's actions are negative.

Then another way to increase their cash is by broadening the market. If they achieve it, that is a long term good action.

Then there are the games with movie licenses. Actually Harry Potter, James Bond and LOTR games are ok. They aren't top-notch or very astoundishing but they are decent enough considering what are we used to expect from movie licence games.

The bad things I think are resumed in monopoly fear.
For example like oftenly talked lastly the sports games. EA is the biggest seller of simulators. And they are the biggest sellers again in the more "extreme" approaches with EA Big games and next Fifa Street.
Here in Spain they say: "EA, We are the sport" The sad thing is that they aren't far of the truth.

A statement I heard more than once from workers in game companies is that everyone struggle to make their sales except EA.
Probably it's just the true nature of capitalism, natural selection.
I'm not someone to say all those millions of people buying EA games are wrong, is their choice.
Still it doesn't make me happy to see how EA games outsell other ones I think that are way more brilliant.

Like you can see I'm confused in this matter. And I'm not sure of what to think. Please enlighten me.

Posted by: Origence on January 25, 2005 07:03 PM

I'm fed up as is with EA's recent games, let alone their squelching of competition in sports games, and their questionable work conditions for their employees.

The latest game I picked up from EA was NBA Live 2005 which I chose because of the new Slam Dunk Competition. Turns out the slam dunk part was great, but the actual "basketball" part of the game was crap. The last thing that EA needs to do is get rid of their competition. Even with competition, they make crappy games.

I have some friends who work in the gaming industry, and even in a company that is considered to have the best of work/life conditions, it's still seems like a sweatshop compared to my development job in boring business applications.

In the end, if EA makes the commitment to making great games, I'll have a hard time complaining since I feel customers are the ones who should reap the ultimate reward. Until they show such commitment, I'm going on a personal boycott of their annual subscription sports moneysuck franchises. I'll encourage anyone else without my realm of influence to do the same.

Posted by: bonytony on January 26, 2005 06:19 PM

I'm not a huge sports game fan, but I'll try to explain.

The real trouble is that some companies, like Sega, were producing great games at better prices than EA. Sega's "ESPN NFL 2K5" was a great game to play, as good (or for old Madden fans, almost as good) as Madden, but cost only $20. ESPN NFL 2K5 has sold really well and is just a lot of fun to play. My favorite part of the game, in fact, was playing the historical scenarios, like the 1967 "Ice Bowl" scenario. The opportunity to see how well I would handle these classic moments is a lot of fun. A $20 game may have meant thinner margins on the item, but basic laws of supply and demand still holds: lower the price and you increase demand by reducing the number of reasons people wouldn't buy the game.

As sure as I am that there's a market for non-NFL football games (like the "Hitz" series), these games are more cartoony and don't really require anywhere near the same level of strategy a real (i.e., NFL-type) game will. For better of for worse, football is identified by the NFL: its teams, players and stadia. NBC tried to reinvent football with the XFL and failed miserably. For other developers to recreate whole leagues is counterproductive when there's already a prominent league.

Basically, competition between football video games is a good thing, because it forces the developers to make better products with more and/or better features. While all of those other developers--like Sega and 989 Sports--now have no choice but to innovate, EA no longer does. There are no other NFL games, so they don't have to do anything any more other than update the rosters every year (which they may well have been doing for the last couple of years). Expect Madden 2006 to be an underwhelming update. EA also no longer is bound by price, since they're the only NFL video game in town. I would not be surprised if Madden 2006 jumps in price from $50 to $70.

Let's face it: for updated rosters and little else, (how much more can a football videogame add that isn't already in there today?) the price we pay for sports games isn't really justified. I had hoped that the $20 ESPN NFL 2K5 was the start of a bold new move in games: recognizing that the games don't change all that much from year to year (especially the year before a new consol comes out, when producers are spending money making ready games for the new system), Sega had found a good way to chip away at EA's Madden brand. I'm really disappointed that EA submarined them the way they did.

To put all of this simply: since when has noncompetition ever benefitted the end user?

Posted by: Robert D. on January 27, 2005 11:56 AM

I think it was Billy Joel who once said, "Nothing's better than good sex, but bad sex? A peanutbutter and jelly sandwich is better than bad sex."

Videogames don't just compete against other videogames in their genre. They compete against all other forms of entertainment. Really, they compete against all possible ways to spend your time. Remember the reports not so long ago where TV people were finally being forced to acknowledge they were losing ground to videogames? If you make a TV show, not only do you have to make it better than the other similar shows, but it should be more fun than a videogame, a boardgame, etc. That's the real competition for EA's next football game. Well, that, and player expectations, of course.

Let the proof of the pudding be in the eating.

Posted by: ClockworkGrue on January 28, 2005 01:18 PM