Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - General Gaming - Hahahaha, oh shit (EA acquires ESPN license in 15-year deal)
| User | Post |
Ailure
Posts: 7297/11162 |
The last I bought was The sims 2... quite recent. 
And yeah, that's one grudge I have against EA. That they killed EA, infact I missed that fact until a year after it's death. Considering I wasn't looking that much on the net. |
alte Hexe
Posts: 2553/5458 |
The Japanese would lose a favourite developer and would continue to buy the titles. Just like Westwood fans are being forced to do.
That was the last EA game I bought. C&C RA2: YR |
Colin
Posts: 6271/11302 |
I can't recall when I "purchased" my last EA game either.
*coughs*
Even if we lived in a parallel world where EA bought Sega, I don't think the Japanese would be too accepting of the move. |
Xeolord
Posts: 1044/3418 |
A boycott would be something nice to *dream* about.
I can't remember the last EA game I actually purchased ... think it was Madden 2000, when it was "ah and amazing" when the PS2 first came out. (About 3-4 years ago) |
alte Hexe
Posts: 2526/5458 |
Yes, but Sega needs lots of money to stand in a protected circle. I'm not worried about Sega being taken over by EA. EA knows that it wouldn't be profitable. I'm worried about another company that is trying to break a market snatching up characters. |
Colin
Posts: 6250/11302 |
Take-Two. Not Sega. Big difference there since Take-Two = Visual Concepts = makers of Sega Sports games. They're rolling in GTA riches.
Toxic: They were taking the $20 price point away from the games anyways. |
alte Hexe
Posts: 2519/5458 |
Originally posted by Colin
According to Gamespot via the Wall Street Journal, Take-Two might counter by going after the MLB license, which I can't imagine would go for peanuts. If nothing else, it would ease the pain by allowing Sega to market the only MLB game in town, although baseball isn't a top-seller last I checked.
EDIT: It would be an exclusive third-party license. Long story short, if Sony, Nintendo or Microsoft wanted to make a MLB game, they could. But Take-Two would be the only ones to make a third-party MLB game. (That's a VERY nice "take that!" to EA, I think.)
Sega doesn't have the money.
Really, I think that gamers world wide need to do a boycott. But I doubt it'll do shit. |
Toxic
Posts: 2300/2857 |
What... the hell.....NO 20 DOLLAR ESPN GAMES ANYMORE  |
Valcion
Posts: 677/1139 |
more like EArth is next lol.
this probably'll sadly put a nail on the coffin...not many people like the new sonic games (LOL KIDDIE GAME IT SUX YARR HALO AND DOOM), and i'm not really sure if they have a fairly strong series they can work off of otherwise. |
Colin
Posts: 6249/11302 |
According to Gamespot via the Wall Street Journal, Take-Two might counter by going after the MLB license, which I can't imagine would go for peanuts. If nothing else, it would ease the pain by allowing Sega to market the only MLB game in town, although baseball isn't a top-seller last I checked.
EDIT: It would be an exclusive third-party license. Long story short, if Sony, Nintendo or Microsoft wanted to make a MLB game, they could. But Take-Two would be the only ones to make a third-party MLB game. (That's a VERY nice "take that!" to EA, I think.) |
Xeolord
Posts: 1040/3418 |
I'm really interested in what Sega might do / say because of this.
It's a fact that for quite some time their ESPN licensed games were selling far better than EA's sport lineups, even when they were selling their games for 20$ a piece. (Sega's, while EA still went for 50$, Sega still accumulated a higher profit.)
Give it back to Sega. =O |
HyperLamer
Posts: 2968/8210 |
Dammit, Sega can't afford this, and they're one of the best game developers around. I'm officially boycotting EA within my household, and wherever else I can.  |
Private Adamant
Posts: 397/551 |
Originally posted by Xeogred
EA fucking sucks.
All their games suck.
Tell me one that didn't.
I swear, I freaking swear, next thing you know, they'll be making their own console, garunteed.
Road Rash didn't suck. Yes, it took me some time to think of an example. I doubt I can come up with another one.
They won't release their own console though, since they'll make more money by releasing their games for every single console still supported. People don't buy EA games because they are EA games, they buy them because they have the official license. Appearantly, if you're playing as G. O. Solsker instead of O. G. Solskaer, the experience is a lot worse,even if the game is better. |
alte Hexe
Posts: 2506/5458 |
Originally posted by Trapster
Umm, what exactly is that ESPN license? However, I don
NSNick
Posts: 1678/3875 |
No, Microsoft hasn't been a dominating games producer. |
Emptyeye
Posts: 1259/2273 |
Originally posted by Ailure
...well, I told people that EA is the gaming worlds Microsoft.
Um....I get the analogy and all, but hasn't MICROSOFT been the gaming world's Microsoft since 2001 (earlier if we count MS games)? 
Back on-topic, I must say I don't like the way this is going.
And I'll say again, EA isn't going into the console business. Long story short: High-risk venture, low-risk company. |
Ran-chan
Posts: 6694/12781 |
Umm, what exactly is that ESPN license? However, I don |
Ailure
Posts: 7275/11162 |
...well, I told people that EA is the gaming worlds Microsoft.
Althought, I hate sports games so this would'nt make a diffrence. But I still hate EA for killing Westwood...
At least, they hadn't killed of Maxis... but I wish that they had another publisher from the start than EA. -.- |
Colin
Posts: 6233/11302 |
I'll try get on topic about the ACTUAL announcement...
EA really needs to watch themselves at the moment because they're quickly monopolizing the sports market - or at the very least, the football market. (It's rumored that EA wants the CFL license to cap everything off, which would complete the monopoly and would probably sell for cheap.) I'm not saying that they'll be brought to court over this, but if there's fishy details about the deals going on here... I want to see their next quarterly statement to see what's really going on.
At the very least, EA's making it so that Sega will be forced out of the football market. They had the ESPN license but that's gone now (and you'd have to think John Madden's gone after Madden 2006) which leaves them with very few possibilities - they have the NHL and NBA along with EA, and the NBA turned down a deal by EA which made sense because they likely enjoy the exposure given by having 3 or 4 companies make NBA titles. The NHL license likely isn't very attractive for EA to chase down given the lockout, so that's likely safe for a while. The MLB license would likely cost waaaaaay too much given EA's recent spendings. Soccer licenses likely wouldn't be exclusive because FIFA as a collective body wouldn't go for that. (EA has the official World Cup license but they've had that since 1998.) |
Xeolord
Posts: 1038/3418 |
Originally posted by Jarukoth
If Rogue Agent is the best game they have, then this spells doom for us all.
D. O. O. M.
Probably.
I've considered giving that game a try. But their past 5-6 Bond games were utterly horrible. 
So yeah, sure their Bond license if fine, but the rest of their games ... ouch. |
| This is a long thread. Click here to view it. | |
|
