This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

When does EA exclusive right to the NFL end?

#71JKSonicPosted 1/29/2013 9:15:33 AM
From: Sheepinator | #309
I'm not a Madden fanboy. In fact I hate football. I can however add 2+2.


So you're saying you're making JUDGEMENT (not knowledgeable fact) based on two series and a sport that you don't even follow or care about...?

From EA's SEC filing:


And again you're referencing EA's filing when this is about 2k and their budget pricing? Also this is for 2012 and the '12 line of games. I've seen a few things in it (ctrl-F'ed NFL) about the monopoly case but nothing even remotely close to talking about the filings for 2004 and earlier when it wasn't exclusive.

PLUS, that wasn't even the point. I openly said I'm not seeing anything specifically about the NFL so I could be wrong. The point was you were trying to make ME look like an ignorant dumb*** by spouting your knowledge about royalties and acting like there was only ONE kind of royalty and that it was just impossible that they were ever not based on sales...
---
"You shouldn't be asking HOW things are, given that we already know there is something..but rather WHY things are, as opposed to there being nothing."
#72JKSonicPosted 1/29/2013 9:21:12 AM
From: superbowl54 | #310
actually, the budget price is what made the NFL go after exclusivity. They didn't like the $20 launch price because they felt it cheapened the brand. I forgot where I saw the article, because it was years ago.



Again, haha, I'm not saying I'm 100% definitively right I just want a credible link stating that. With a quick search I couldn't find one... I followed this thoroughly as it was going down because I was genuinely upset about it and I never say that mentioned in a factual context before, rumors yes...but I remember the general consesus being that truly wasn't the case. If I see a link I will fully 100% admit I'm wrong about that. Just as if Sheep had showed me 2k's filings to show it was sale-royalty based back when it wasn't exclusive (which again, wasn't the point anyway, the point was that it COULD be).
---
"You shouldn't be asking HOW things are, given that we already know there is something..but rather WHY things are, as opposed to there being nothing."
#73SheepinatorPosted 1/29/2013 9:27:19 AM
JKSonic posted...
From: Sheepinator | #309
I'm not a Madden fanboy. In fact I hate football. I can however add 2+2.

So you're saying you're making JUDGEMENT (not knowledgeable fact) based on two series and a sport that you don't even follow or care about...?

You don't need to be a fan of a brand to know that giving it away with 99 cent meals cheapens that brand. That's just obvious. I actually find it comical that people keep arguing that it's irrelevant.

The point was you were trying to make ME look like an ignorant dumb*** by spouting your knowledge about royalties and acting like there was only ONE kind of royalty and that it was just impossible that they were ever not based on sales...

Well, the evidence has spoken. I've never heard of royalties that aren't based on revenue, and EA's filings also point to it being based on revenue. Plus, it's common sense. I mean if Madden sells 8M or whatever each year, the idea that one year could be a great year with 18M sold and that all that upside would go 100% to EA and 0% to NFL is laughable. So yes, you do sound naive when you keep pushing these things (including the argument that giving away brands in no way cheapens them).

"This contract should allow EA to eliminate competition in the pro football category, hold premium pricing next year and raise prices for the next console cycle," Pacific Crest Securities analyst Evan Wilson wrote in a research note. "It should also alleviate some of the pressure to re-sign John Madden's contract at the end of the year."

Although EA did not disclose financial terms of its deal, Wilson said it is "likely" that EA has doubled its royalty payment to the NFL from an estimated 5 percent of net revenue.


http://www.nbcnews.com/id/6714361/ns/technology_and_science-games/t/electronic-arts-signs-exclusive-nfl-deal/
---
My mad face and my happy face are the same.
#74JKSonicPosted 1/29/2013 9:37:22 AM(edited)
From: Sheepinator | #353
You don't need to be a fan of a brand to know that giving it away with 99 cent meals cheapens that brand. That's just obvious. I actually find it comical that people keep arguing that it's irrelevant.


It was a good game though and 2k was VERY clear about what they were doing and why they were doing it far before hand. There's no way if the NFL ended up being that upset about it that they wouldn't have warned 2k about it...and there's no way that 2k; after having received a warning; would have went ahead with it knowing they'd probably lose the license essentially forever. And if they did get that upset without a warning that just shows they had obviously been in talks with EA before hand (which all signs put to that they were anyway...pretty sure somebody even linked to it)...

Well, the evidence has spoken. I've never heard of royalties that aren't based on revenue, and EA's filings also point to it being based on revenue


No evidence at all has "spoken" lol, except what I've already stated...that yes revenue based royalties are more common but are not the ONLY type. It would only take you a super quick google search to see that. Plus again, these are EA's and are based on the NFL being exclusive, not based on when it wasn't exclusive. Remember they signed a deal for several years with this, it was not a normal "oh we're licensing it for this year and we have to renew it next year". It's the royalties done that way which are often done on a flat-fee/yearly basis since they are constantly being renewed and at that point can then be adjusted based on the sales. AGAIN (since words keep getting put in my mouth) not saying that IS the case, just that it's a possibility.


Look there's no point in arguing the first point until there's a link. And the second point unless you show me 2k's filings for 2004 or earlier then there's no point arguing either.
---
"You shouldn't be asking HOW things are, given that we already know there is something..but rather WHY things are, as opposed to there being nothing."
#75SheepinatorPosted 1/29/2013 9:44:24 AM
JKSonic posted...
No evidence at all has "spoken" lol, except what I've already stated...that yes revenue based royalties are more common but are not the ONLY type. It would only take you a super quick google search to see that. Plus again, these are EA's and are based on the NFL being exclusive, not based on when it wasn't exclusive. Remember they signed a deal for several years with this, it was not a normal "oh we're licensing it for this year and we have to renew it next year". It's the royalties done that way which are often done on a flat-fee/yearly basis since they are constantly being renewed and at that point can then be adjusted based on the sales. AGAIN (since words keep getting put in my mouth) not saying that IS the case, just that it's a possibility.

You can go look it up if you want. You're the one making all these speculations and claims about it.
---
My mad face and my happy face are the same.
#76Bebop242Posted 1/29/2013 10:12:15 AM
The whole 2k5 cheapening the brand seems to speculation, although I remember reading a quote from a NFL executive saying as much.

Tried googling for it and only came up with this from a Gamespot post from 2004:

Some industry insiders speculate the exclusive deal was embraced by the NFL after it saw Take-Two lower the price of its 2K5 product earlier this year. No licensor likes to see a price war being fought with its brand value at stake.
#77madgreg666Posted 1/29/2013 10:23:11 AM
My 2 favorite sports games were NFL and NHL 2k5. Sega had it going on that year. I always liked the 2k hockey series better, until EA passed it graphically, and 2k stopped making NHL games all together. Can we just get an NHL game with a little blood in it?

Anyway the whole idea of exclusively owning the rights to use a franchise in a VIDEOGAME is silly to me, but then again I don't have a quadrazillion dollars either.
---
XBL: madgregXTX
2009 Yamaha Nytro XTX - 1750miles - Wheres the snow? Not in New England anymore!
#78Bebop242Posted 1/29/2013 11:03:48 AM
I actually popped in 2K5 the other day and I was shocked at the different modes and options it offered. The recreated big games/situations from the past 25 years, the first person view mode and others it provided. It was a steal at 20 bucks.

I HATE these exclusive deals. Competition is necessary in the videogame market and sports games in particular. I particularly like baseball games and enjoy the Show, but I can't help to feel that we would have a better game right now if it was still competing with games like High Heat or EA's MVP series. I feel the Show has become too stagnant when their only competition is the 2k series.
#79_OujiDoza_Posted 1/30/2013 9:28:02 AM
Yeah, let the wanna-be execs tell you what's what, bottm line is this whole sequence of events has hurt both sides more than helped and it's not gonne get any better any time soon.
---
U CAN MAKE FUN OF ME BEING AN EAGLES FAN BUT I HAVE A BETTER LIFE THAN YOU A GF WHO LOVES ME
http://i.imgur.com/9XBfO.jpg (DC wat u think)