The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
To this day, there has not been a single advertisment put into the game. Looks like all those whiners were just wasting their time.
This raises a question. EA said the spyware built into BF2142 was included to track advertisement views. If there are no ads to look at, then what is the spyware doing?
Didn't they have to shape up after the shit hit the fan before? Once called on their crap, most businesses turn things around. It's not like the name "EA" makes managers evil and employees downtrodden.
That being said, even if that's the case, they haven't done anything to redeem themselves yet.
But how does Take 2's revenue picture change when they're the only company that can release an NFL game?
Impossible to say, since I don't know the details of the deal. EA has a much better ability to absorb short-term losses for long-term gains. It could be that EA doesn't expect to realize a net profit from their NFL deal until 6 years down the road, and that this is only a good deal when you look at it 10 years down the line. Theoretically, they could have seen no net profit from this deal even after 10 years, and are just banking on some future profit from a decade of increase mindshare.
If that's the case, then it could be that even though this would profitable for Take Two, they don't have the capital to see it through without risking bankruptcy in the short term. I mean, if I bought a million dollar house right now, and sold it in 10 years, I'd make a hefty profit. But the payments on that house would bankrupt me in a few months, so it's not ab option.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
SixCaches Tweets in the mainframe cyberhexRegistered Userregular
But how does Take 2's revenue picture change when they're the only company that can release an NFL game?
Impossible to say, since I don't know the details of the deal. EA has a much better ability to absorb short-term losses for long-term gains. It could be that EA doesn't expect to realize a net profit from their NFL deal until 6 years down the road, and that this is only a good deal when you look at it 10 years down the line. Theoretically, they could have seen no net profit from this deal even after 10 years, and are just banking on some future profit from a decade of increase mindshare.
If that's the case, then it could be that even though this would profitable for Take Two, they don't have the capital to see it through without risking bankruptcy in the short term. I mean, if I bought a million dollar house right now, and sold it in 10 years, I'd make a hefty profit. But the payments on that house would bankrupt me in a few months, so it's not ab option.
And neither of us are in a position to say whether they could or couldn't have. I thought you already agreed to that point.
That still doesn't speak to Take 2's ability or inability to make that purchase. All we know is that EA could, gvien the opportunity.
This is true. But it does mean that it was much easier for EA to finance that deal than TT, given that the alleged buy-off amount was about a third of TT's annual gross revenues, compared to 1/10 of EA's.
If you're EA, do you assume Take 2 can't and say no? Really? Be honest.
Honestly? I would say no. But I fully admit that my philosophy as a game developer makes me potentially unsuited to running a $3B-a-year multinational publishing conglomerate.
But how does Take 2's revenue picture change when they're the only company that can release an NFL game?
Anyway, I agree with everyone that it sucks. I'd rather see many NFL (and MLB and everything else) games competing and offering better games every year. Madden's been going nowhere the last couple of years and it's too bad.
VC and Take Two were really on to some with NFL2K5... I still play the game to this damn day because it's still better than Madden.
Didn't Madden copy NFL2k's pass system exactly? Where the stick controls ball placement and the analog button controls speed?
To this day, there has not been a single advertisment put into the game. Looks like all those whiners were just wasting their time.
This raises a question. EA said the spyware built into BF2142 was included to track advertisement views. If there are no ads to look at, then what is the spyware doing?
There's a good chance it's still sending the data to EA so that they can sell the ad spaces like you would with a TV channel. Prime time costing more for less time, etc. Once it has been running long enough, they can just data mine that info.
And neither of us are in a position to say whether they could or couldn't have. I thought you already agreed to that point.
Definitively? No, we can't. But as sentient beings, we can make educated guesses. My educated guess is that it was either EA or nobody.
Think of it this way: The only way this deal made sense for the NFL is if the licensing fees they were being paid by EA were much greater than the sum of all the licensing fees paid to them by every other company prior to the deal. That's a lot of money.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
That still doesn't speak to Take 2's ability or inability to make that purchase. All we know is that EA could, gvien the opportunity.
This is true. But it does mean that it was much easier for EA to finance that deal than TT, given that the alleged buy-off amount was about a third of TT's annual gross revenues, compared to 1/10 of EA's.
If you're EA, do you assume Take 2 can't and say no? Really? Be honest.
Honestly? I would say no. But I fully admit that my philosophy as a game developer makes me potentially unsuited to running a $3B-a-year multinational publishing conglomerate.
But how does Take 2's revenue picture change when they're the only company that can release an NFL game?
Anyway, I agree with everyone that it sucks. I'd rather see many NFL (and MLB and everything else) games competing and offering better games every year. Madden's been going nowhere the last couple of years and it's too bad.
VC and Take Two were really on to some with NFL2K5... I still play the game to this damn day because it's still better than Madden.
Didn't Madden copy NFL2k's pass system exactly? Where the stick controls ball placement and the analog button controls speed?
That's not what makes NFL2K5 so damn great though. It's much MUCH more than that.
And neither of us are in a position to say whether they could or couldn't have. I thought you already agreed to that point.
Definitively? No, we can't. But as sentient beings, we can make educated guesses. My educated guess is that it was either EA or nobody.
Think of it this way: The only way this deal made sense for the NFL is if the licensing fees they were being paid by EA were much greater than the sum of all the licensing fees paid to them by every other company prior to the deal. That's a lot of money.
Your gut feeling isn't really any evidence though, is it? You're entire point is that EA should have said no to this deal because Take 2 couldn't afford it. I'm glad your gut tells you no, but it's not really a persuasive argument.
To this day, there has not been a single advertisment put into the game. Looks like all those whiners were just wasting their time.
This raises a question. EA said the spyware built into BF2142 was included to track advertisement views. If there are no ads to look at, then what is the spyware doing?
There's a good chance it's still sending the data to EA so that they can sell the ad spaces like you would with a TV channel. Prime time costing more for less time, etc. Once it has been running long enough, they can just data mine that info.
The adspace is currently used for generic in-game graphics. (The EU wants YOU!, etc) They are running a contest now to put player made images in game as well.
I am pretty sure they abandoned using advertising after the amount of people misunderstood what the EA spyware actually did. Players, and many news sites, claimed that a program ran in the background while you surfed the net and monitored what sites you visited, to then tailor ads to use later in the game.
What actually happened is that when the game runs, it checks your IP address and sends that to EA so it can give you advertisements in english, french, or whatever language your region is classified under. You wouldn't see an advert for a 'Royale avec Fromage' playing in Texas, for instance. In my opinion, that isn't really invasive at all. EA already uses your IP address for stat tracking and punkbuster, what does it matter if they check what country you live in?
I can't say I'd like or dislike the ads, had they gone in. They said they wouldn't disrupt the gameplay experience. I don't know that i wouldn't feel disrupting by a huge billboard for Revlon lip gloss in the middle of Suaz Canel... but who knows.
Your gut feeling isn't really any evidence though, is it? You're entire point is that EA should have said no to this deal because Take 2 couldn't afford it. I'm glad your gut tells you no, but it's not really a persuasive argument.
My main argument is that EA should've said no because money spent on licenses is invariably money not spend on actual game development, which often results in a shittier product.
You then said, "Well, someone else would just swoop in and buy the license." I pointed out that paying a third of your gross revenues to acquire a license is quite likely to be suicidal, and now you're saying, "Well, you don't know do you? Huh? Do you? Do you know for absolute 100% certain?" And I'm saying, "No, but it seems a reasonable proposition from what I do know," and you're saying, "Well, that's not good enough, because you don't know for absolute certain," and now I'm saying, "Whatever, this tangent is stupid," and ceasing the conversation.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
To this day, there has not been a single advertisment put into the game. Looks like all those whiners were just wasting their time.
This raises a question. EA said the spyware built into BF2142 was included to track advertisement views. If there are no ads to look at, then what is the spyware doing?
There's a good chance it's still sending the data to EA so that they can sell the ad spaces like you would with a TV channel. Prime time costing more for less time, etc. Once it has been running long enough, they can just data mine that info.
The adspace is currently used for generic in-game graphics. (The EU wants YOU!, etc) They are running a contest now to put player made images in game as well.
I am pretty sure they abandoned using advertising after the amount of people misunderstood what the EA spyware actually did. Players, and many news sites, claimed that a program ran in the background while you surfed the net and monitored what sites you visited, to then tailor ads to use later in the game.
What actually happened is that when the game runs, it checks your IP address and sends that to EA so it can give you advertisements in english, french, or whatever language your region is classified under. You wouldn't see an advert for a 'Royale avec Fromage' playing in Texas, for instance. In my opinion, that isn't really invasive at all. EA already uses your IP address for stat tracking and punkbuster, what does it matter if they check what country you live in?
I can't say I'd like or dislike the ads, had they gone in. They said they wouldn't disrupt the gameplay experience. I don't know that i wouldn't feel disrupting by a huge billboard for Revlon lip gloss in the middle of Suaz Canel... but who knows.
You sure do know a lot about the inner workings of EA games. Things that only people who work in the company would know about. Hmmm...
cloudeagle on
Switch: 3947-4890-9293
0
Der Waffle MousBlame this on the misfortune of your birth.New Yark, New Yark.Registered Userregular
edited January 2007
In any case, I at least have to agree that the whole BF2142 ad thing was just a lot of overreaction.
Your gut feeling isn't really any evidence though, is it? You're entire point is that EA should have said no to this deal because Take 2 couldn't afford it. I'm glad your gut tells you no, but it's not really a persuasive argument.
My main argument is that EA should've said no because money spent on licenses is invariably money not spend on actual game development, which often results in a shittier product.
You then said, "Well, someone else would just swoop in and buy the license." I pointed out that paying a third of your gross revenues to acquire a license is quite likely to be suicidal, and now you're saying, "Well, you don't know do you? Huh? Do you? Do you know for absolute 100% certain?" And I'm saying, "No, but it seems a reasonable proposition from what I do know," and you're saying, "Well, that's not good enough, because you don't know for absolute certain," and now I'm saying, "Whatever, this tangent is stupid," and ceasing the conversation.
Funny causae I bet EA thought:
'Well, we have the only football game, so they'll have to buy ours now!!! Almost double the sales!!!"
And in reality, I believe their sales went up only slightly. Most people like myself and said, "fuck tis, no more football games" and alot of Madden lovers said, "this game is getting stale as hell".
We'll see how good this does them, but I'm pretty sure no one wwill come to pick up the license other then them in 6 years. VC by that time will be totally gone.
Your gut feeling isn't really any evidence though, is it? You're entire point is that EA should have said no to this deal because Take 2 couldn't afford it. I'm glad your gut tells you no, but it's not really a persuasive argument.
My main argument is that EA should've said no because money spent on licenses is invariably money not spend on actual game development, which often results in a shittier product.
You then said, "Well, someone else would just swoop in and buy the license." I pointed out that paying a third of your gross revenues to acquire a license is quite likely to be suicidal, and now you're saying, "Well, you don't know do you? Huh? Do you? Do you know for absolute 100% certain?" And I'm saying, "No, but it seems a reasonable proposition from what I do know," and you're saying, "Well, that's not good enough, because you don't know for absolute certain," and now I'm saying, "Whatever, this tangent is stupid," and ceasing the conversation.
Funny causae I bet EA thought:
'Well, we have the only football game, so they'll have to buy ours now!!! Almost double the sales!!!"
And in reality, I believe their sales went up only slightly. Most people like myself and said, "fuck tis, no more football games" and alot of Madden lovers said, "this game is getting stale as hell".
We'll see how good this does them, but I'm pretty sure no one wwill come to pick up the license other then them in 6 years. VC by that time will be totally gone.
Sad to say, that's probably true. The NFL has tasted the fruits of exclusivity contracts and found them sweet.
without trying to validate all the dickish things EA do, i do think that people ignore the occasional good work EA does in favour of chanting "lol ea sux" over and over
SSX, for example, is probably one of the best sport franchises ever made, and by far the best snowboarding game, and C&C3 is pure fanservice awesomeitude after the negative fan reaction to generals
That still doesn't speak to Take 2's ability or inability to make that purchase. All we know is that EA could, gvien the opportunity.
This is true. But it does mean that it was much easier for EA to finance that deal than TT, given that the alleged buy-off amount was about a third of TT's annual gross revenues, compared to 1/10 of EA's.
If you're EA, do you assume Take 2 can't and say no? Really? Be honest.
Honestly? I would say no. But I fully admit that my philosophy as a game developer makes me potentially unsuited to running a $3B-a-year multinational publishing conglomerate.
But how does Take 2's revenue picture change when they're the only company that can release an NFL game?
Anyway, I agree with everyone that it sucks. I'd rather see many NFL (and MLB and everything else) games competing and offering better games every year. Madden's been going nowhere the last couple of years and it's too bad.
VC and Take Two were really on to some with NFL2K5... I still play the game to this damn day because it's still better than Madden.
Didn't Madden copy NFL2k's pass system exactly? Where the stick controls ball placement and the analog button controls speed?
That's not what makes NFL2K5 so damn great though. It's much MUCH more than that.
Exactly IMO NFL2K5 is the best football game ever released.
It's just such an amazing game in so many ways, I wish it would be made backwords compatible for the 360.
though I still don't why it's so good, but I just love it.
Lothars on
0
SixCaches Tweets in the mainframe cyberhexRegistered Userregular
Your gut feeling isn't really any evidence though, is it? You're entire point is that EA should have said no to this deal because Take 2 couldn't afford it. I'm glad your gut tells you no, but it's not really a persuasive argument.
My main argument is that EA should've said no because money spent on licenses is invariably money not spend on actual game development, which often results in a shittier product.
You then said, "Well, someone else would just swoop in and buy the license." I pointed out that paying a third of your gross revenues to acquire a license is quite likely to be suicidal, and now you're saying, "Well, you don't know do you? Huh? Do you? Do you know for absolute 100% certain?" And I'm saying, "No, but it seems a reasonable proposition from what I do know," and you're saying, "Well, that's not good enough, because you don't know for absolute certain," and now I'm saying, "Whatever, this tangent is stupid," and ceasing the conversation.
No, I didn't say someone would have swooped in and bought it, I said the NFL would have offered it to Take 2 (why not?) and that if they could, they would probably have bought it.
Without knowing how Take 2 would projected their revenues after having the only NFL game, or knowing more about how they could have financed the deal, there's really no way to make an intelligent argument that they would have said yes or no. But your gut says they couldn't, and while I'm sure it serves you well, it's not exactly a convincing position. I never said anything about being 100% certain, that's just you twisting my comments.
I do agree that it's a stupid debate, because there's so little information to go on. EA was offered it, they took it, and that's that. I'm sure you'll make another useless post to get the last word in.
Your gut feeling isn't really any evidence though, is it? You're entire point is that EA should have said no to this deal because Take 2 couldn't afford it. I'm glad your gut tells you no, but it's not really a persuasive argument.
My main argument is that EA should've said no because money spent on licenses is invariably money not spend on actual game development, which often results in a shittier product.
You then said, "Well, someone else would just swoop in and buy the license." I pointed out that paying a third of your gross revenues to acquire a license is quite likely to be suicidal, and now you're saying, "Well, you don't know do you? Huh? Do you? Do you know for absolute 100% certain?" And I'm saying, "No, but it seems a reasonable proposition from what I do know," and you're saying, "Well, that's not good enough, because you don't know for absolute certain," and now I'm saying, "Whatever, this tangent is stupid," and ceasing the conversation.
No, I didn't say someone would have swooped in and bought it, I said the NFL would have offered it to Take 2 (why not?) and that if they could, they would probably have bought it.
Without knowing how Take 2 would projected their revenues after having the only NFL game, or knowing more about how they could have financed the deal, there's really no way to make an intelligent argument that they would have said yes or no. But your gut says they couldn't, and while I'm sure it serves you well, it's not exactly a convincing position. I never said anything about being 100% certain, that's just you twisting my comments.
I do agree that it's a stupid debate, because there's so little information to go on. EA was offered it, they took it, and that's that. I'm sure you'll make another useless post to get the last word in.
You do know it was a open bid right and EA easily bid the highest right?
Let us as Mythic to that list, just incase EA puts their wang into WAR and screws it all up.
What about Dice?
Well, Dice I guess like Maxis are still pretty much intact and just under the EA banner. With those other companies I think most of the time the employees pretty much left EA on mass to form their own companies. Generally speaking it's not like it's a huge loss except in terms of ip. And we're all whining how we want more new ip anyways.
And just as a general comment, I wish people were as ethical minded with other companies as they are with EA.
Let us as Mythic to that list, just incase EA puts their wang into WAR and screws it all up.
What about Dice?
Well, Dice I guess like Maxis are still pretty much intact and just under the EA banner. With those other companies I think most of the time the employees pretty much left EA on mass to form their own companies. Generally speaking it's not like it's a huge loss except in terms of ip. And we're all whining how we want more new ip anyways.
And just as a general comment, I wish people were as ethical minded with other companies as they are with EA.
Unfortunately, it's very easy to take an ethical stand against a company that does something relatively unimportant to one's existence or comfort (publish video games).
I do agree that it's a stupid debate, because there's so little information to go on. EA was offered it, they took it, and that's that. I'm sure you'll make another useless post to get the last word in.
Shillelagh.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I do agree that it's a stupid debate, because there's so little information to go on. EA was offered it, they took it, and that's that. I'm sure you'll make another useless post to get the last word in.
Shillelagh.
well put
EDIT - I don't understand the picture above my post...
I do agree that it's a stupid debate, because there's so little information to go on. EA was offered it, they took it, and that's that. I'm sure you'll make another useless post to get the last word in.
Shillelagh.
well put
EDIT - I don't understand the picture above my post...
An easter egg from Relic's company of heroes. Look closely.
I do agree that it's a stupid debate, because there's so little information to go on. EA was offered it, they took it, and that's that. I'm sure you'll make another useless post to get the last word in.
Shillelagh.
well put
EDIT - I don't understand the picture above my post...
I do agree that it's a stupid debate, because there's so little information to go on. EA was offered it, they took it, and that's that. I'm sure you'll make another useless post to get the last word in.
Shillelagh.
well put
EDIT - I don't understand the picture above my post...
An easter egg from Relic's company of heroes. Look closely.
I do agree that it's a stupid debate, because there's so little information to go on. EA was offered it, they took it, and that's that. I'm sure you'll make another useless post to get the last word in.
Shillelagh.
well put
EDIT - I don't understand the picture above my post...
An easter egg from Relic's company of heroes. Look closely.
I do agree that it's a stupid debate, because there's so little information to go on. EA was offered it, they took it, and that's that. I'm sure you'll make another useless post to get the last word in.
Shillelagh.
well put
EDIT - I don't understand the picture above my post...
An easter egg from Relic's company of heroes. Look closely.
Ahh very nice.
There was another game put out once upon a time, by some company that had dealings with EA. This was back when EA's logo was this:
In the game, there were these three objects of ultimate evil. They were a cube, a pyramid, and a sphere.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I do agree that it's a stupid debate, because there's so little information to go on. EA was offered it, they took it, and that's that. I'm sure you'll make another useless post to get the last word in.
Shillelagh.
well put
EDIT - I don't understand the picture above my post...
An easter egg from Relic's company of heroes. Look closely.
Ahh very nice.
There was another game put out once upon a time, by some company that had dealings with EA. This was back when EA's logo was this:
In the game, there were these three objects of ultimate evil. They were a cube, a pyramid, and a sphere.
Wait, is Company of Heroes published by EA? Also, you must find out the name of this game you speak of
I do agree that it's a stupid debate, because there's so little information to go on. EA was offered it, they took it, and that's that. I'm sure you'll make another useless post to get the last word in.
Shillelagh.
well put
EDIT - I don't understand the picture above my post...
An easter egg from Relic's company of heroes. Look closely.
Ahh very nice.
There was another game put out once upon a time, by some company that had dealings with EA. This was back when EA's logo was this:
In the game, there were these three objects of ultimate evil. They were a cube, a pyramid, and a sphere.
Wait, is Company of Heroes published by EA? Also, you must find out the name of this game you speak of
Posts
This raises a question. EA said the spyware built into BF2142 was included to track advertisement views. If there are no ads to look at, then what is the spyware doing?
That being said, even if that's the case, they haven't done anything to redeem themselves yet.
Impossible to say, since I don't know the details of the deal. EA has a much better ability to absorb short-term losses for long-term gains. It could be that EA doesn't expect to realize a net profit from their NFL deal until 6 years down the road, and that this is only a good deal when you look at it 10 years down the line. Theoretically, they could have seen no net profit from this deal even after 10 years, and are just banking on some future profit from a decade of increase mindshare.
If that's the case, then it could be that even though this would profitable for Take Two, they don't have the capital to see it through without risking bankruptcy in the short term. I mean, if I bought a million dollar house right now, and sold it in 10 years, I'd make a hefty profit. But the payments on that house would bankrupt me in a few months, so it's not ab option.
And neither of us are in a position to say whether they could or couldn't have. I thought you already agreed to that point.
There's a good chance it's still sending the data to EA so that they can sell the ad spaces like you would with a TV channel. Prime time costing more for less time, etc. Once it has been running long enough, they can just data mine that info.
Definitively? No, we can't. But as sentient beings, we can make educated guesses. My educated guess is that it was either EA or nobody.
Think of it this way: The only way this deal made sense for the NFL is if the licensing fees they were being paid by EA were much greater than the sum of all the licensing fees paid to them by every other company prior to the deal. That's a lot of money.
That's not what makes NFL2K5 so damn great though. It's much MUCH more than that.
I know, I'll buy Madden 1989 - 2007... so thats... 18 games...
But perhaps I'd prefer some hockey... NHL 1991 - 2007 anybody?
Your gut feeling isn't really any evidence though, is it? You're entire point is that EA should have said no to this deal because Take 2 couldn't afford it. I'm glad your gut tells you no, but it's not really a persuasive argument.
But keep making it if you like.
The adspace is currently used for generic in-game graphics. (The EU wants YOU!, etc) They are running a contest now to put player made images in game as well.
I am pretty sure they abandoned using advertising after the amount of people misunderstood what the EA spyware actually did. Players, and many news sites, claimed that a program ran in the background while you surfed the net and monitored what sites you visited, to then tailor ads to use later in the game.
What actually happened is that when the game runs, it checks your IP address and sends that to EA so it can give you advertisements in english, french, or whatever language your region is classified under. You wouldn't see an advert for a 'Royale avec Fromage' playing in Texas, for instance. In my opinion, that isn't really invasive at all. EA already uses your IP address for stat tracking and punkbuster, what does it matter if they check what country you live in?
I can't say I'd like or dislike the ads, had they gone in. They said they wouldn't disrupt the gameplay experience. I don't know that i wouldn't feel disrupting by a huge billboard for Revlon lip gloss in the middle of Suaz Canel... but who knows.
As shitty as EA is, salaried employees (which most programmers are) don't get paid for their overtime.
To be fair though, most places don't make you work as much overtime as EA does either.
My main argument is that EA should've said no because money spent on licenses is invariably money not spend on actual game development, which often results in a shittier product.
You then said, "Well, someone else would just swoop in and buy the license." I pointed out that paying a third of your gross revenues to acquire a license is quite likely to be suicidal, and now you're saying, "Well, you don't know do you? Huh? Do you? Do you know for absolute 100% certain?" And I'm saying, "No, but it seems a reasonable proposition from what I do know," and you're saying, "Well, that's not good enough, because you don't know for absolute certain," and now I'm saying, "Whatever, this tangent is stupid," and ceasing the conversation.
You sure do know a lot about the inner workings of EA games. Things that only people who work in the company would know about. Hmmm...
Let us ad Mythic to that list, just incase EA puts their wang into WAR and screws it all up.
Funny causae I bet EA thought:
'Well, we have the only football game, so they'll have to buy ours now!!! Almost double the sales!!!"
And in reality, I believe their sales went up only slightly. Most people like myself and said, "fuck tis, no more football games" and alot of Madden lovers said, "this game is getting stale as hell".
We'll see how good this does them, but I'm pretty sure no one wwill come to pick up the license other then them in 6 years. VC by that time will be totally gone.
Sad to say, that's probably true. The NFL has tasted the fruits of exclusivity contracts and found them sweet.
SSX, for example, is probably one of the best sport franchises ever made, and by far the best snowboarding game, and C&C3 is pure fanservice awesomeitude after the negative fan reaction to generals
Exactly IMO NFL2K5 is the best football game ever released.
It's just such an amazing game in so many ways, I wish it would be made backwords compatible for the 360.
though I still don't why it's so good, but I just love it.
No, I didn't say someone would have swooped in and bought it, I said the NFL would have offered it to Take 2 (why not?) and that if they could, they would probably have bought it.
Without knowing how Take 2 would projected their revenues after having the only NFL game, or knowing more about how they could have financed the deal, there's really no way to make an intelligent argument that they would have said yes or no. But your gut says they couldn't, and while I'm sure it serves you well, it's not exactly a convincing position. I never said anything about being 100% certain, that's just you twisting my comments.
I do agree that it's a stupid debate, because there's so little information to go on. EA was offered it, they took it, and that's that. I'm sure you'll make another useless post to get the last word in.
You do know it was a open bid right and EA easily bid the highest right?
Well, Dice I guess like Maxis are still pretty much intact and just under the EA banner. With those other companies I think most of the time the employees pretty much left EA on mass to form their own companies. Generally speaking it's not like it's a huge loss except in terms of ip. And we're all whining how we want more new ip anyways.
And just as a general comment, I wish people were as ethical minded with other companies as they are with EA.
However, upon this occuring, they appear to then pretend that it doesn't exist.
Doing more reading, it seems it was, making the entire argument even more stupid
I can't remember where I read it was the other way around, but it seems I was mistaken.
Unfortunately, it's very easy to take an ethical stand against a company that does something relatively unimportant to one's existence or comfort (publish video games).
Oh, okay. I had to make sure you guys knew that cause the debate was going in a weird direction.
Shillelagh.
well put
EDIT - I don't understand the picture above my post...
An easter egg from Relic's company of heroes. Look closely.
"EA SUXS"
Cute...
Ahh very nice.
There was another game put out once upon a time, by some company that had dealings with EA. This was back when EA's logo was this:
In the game, there were these three objects of ultimate evil. They were a cube, a pyramid, and a sphere.
Wait, is Company of Heroes published by EA? Also, you must find out the name of this game you speak of
It's published by THQ