NCAA Football 12 News Post

New Features Aren’t All Free in NCAA Football 12

09:13 AM - May 26, 2011 by Steve_OS

Kotaku's Owen Good chimes in with some of his thoughts surrounding the latest micro-transactions to make their way into NCAA Football 12.

Quote:


	There may not be any optimal time to tell gamers about all the microtransactions and DLC for which they can expect to pay extra in an upcoming release. But the official reveal of a game's main features -- the stuff folks expect to come with the $59.99 retail price -- would probably be the least optimal.

Game: NCAA Football 12Reader Score: 7/10 - Vote Now
Platform: PS3 / Xbox 360Votes for game: 104 - View All

NCAA Football 12 Videos

Member Comments

# 361 bkrich83 @ 05/31/11 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solidice


	EA had the only NCAA FB game(expect maybe text based sims) at the time of the exclusive deal was made. It was around 2 years before that the last Sony or 2k college football game was made. so I doubt they even wanted to make a bid.

I believe your right, but don't remember exactly how it went down.

# 362 bkrich83 @ 05/31/11 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kbmnm247


	Also, why can't I buy another NCAA or NFL game this year? Because EA bought the exclusive license. That is also fact.

Because the NFL decided to follow their business plan and go exclusive on the license, maximizing their profits.

# 363 kbmnm247 @ 05/31/11 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bkrich83


	Exclusive licensing is a staple of the NFL Business plan. See their apparel deals, see direcTV, etc. If you want to watch your team out of market you have to have DirecTV.. If you want to own licensed NFL apparel you have to buy whatever brand they have the deal with. EA is along for the ride on this, and I don't think anyone likes it, but the NFL is far more to blame for this fiasco than EA. VC bid on the license and came up short, the rest is history. If you want to be mad, be mad at the league.

Some questions so we are on the same page, who do you think went to who first to get the exclusive deal? EA or the NFL? Do you think that VC had the monetary backing to their company to match anything EA could have offered? Do you think the NFL would have stopped allowing NFL games to be made unless they had an exclusive deal with someone or do you think they would have been fine collecting multiple licensing fees year after year from whoever wanted to make an NFL game?

Second, I don't have DirecTV and I've never missed an Eagles game. I also can't even name you the licensed NFL apparel brand because I can buy from multiple suppliers as well as replicas, etc. That being said, it's a moot point and has nothing to do with the football sports gaming genre issue we are discussing here. It's WAY more intricate than what happened here, I think we can both agree on that.

# 364 kbmnm247 @ 05/31/11 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bkrich83


	Why is that EA's fault? Why are they the only ones that bear the blame?

BECAUSE THEY ARE THE ONES GOING TO THESE LEAGUES AND ASKING FOR EXCLUSIVITY BECAUSE THEY ARE THE ONLY COMPANY WITH ENOUGH MONEY TO MAKE IT FINANCIALLY SMART TO ACCEPT SUCH A DEAL.

Like cmon man at least you are debating this intelligently but think about it. Hypothetically, EA puts out 1 billion in licensing fees for exclusivity in NFL, NBA, MLB. This means they don't need to spend hundreds of millions in marketing because they are the only game in town. This means they don't need to improve their games at the same rates as competition because they are the only game in town. This means they can charge for features that most likely would be included with the $60 you originally pay, because there are the only game in town.

They took the lazy way out, and are now asking us to pay for it. And the best part is, YOU GUYS SEEM FINE WITH THAT!?!

# 365 bkrich83 @ 05/31/11 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kbmnm247


	Some questions so we are on the same page, who do you think went to who first to get the exclusive deal? EA or the NFL? Do you think that VC had the monetary backing to their company to match anything EA could have offered? Do you think the NFL would have stopped allowing NFL games to be made unless they had an exclusive deal with someone or do you think they would have been fine collecting multiple licensing fees year after year from whoever wanted to make an NFL game? Second, I don't have DirecTV and I've never missed an Eagles game. I also can't even name you the licensed NFL apparel brand because I can buy from multiple suppliers as well as replicas, etc. That being said, it's a moot point and has nothing to do with the football sports gaming genre issue we are discussing here. It's WAY more intricate than what happened here, I think we can both agree on that.

I know for a fact that the NFL went to the companies. And it's obvious why, they get a lot more for the exclusive license than they do with the other 2 or 3 companies purchasing the license. It wasn't even close.

VC, simply did not have the financial resources to match the offer from what I gather. But to be honest, I believe the NFL wanted EA to win the license no matter what. I think that's the reason they keep extending the deal. They want EA to have the license as Madden is more than just a brand name at this point, it's part of our culture.

Are the Eagles out of market? If they are then you are seeing them from some outside source.. Like I said, if you want to legally watch out of market games, DirecTV is your only source as the NFL has exclusively licensed them for out of market TV. In market that's obviously not the case, but you can thank the FCC for that I believe more than anything else.

I have no idea on the licensing of apparel, it seems to change frequently. Also Jerry Jones muddied the water with is attempt at an Adidas deal or however that went down.

It's not a moot point though. It goes to show a pattern the NFL has stuck to when it comes to their IP. It's unfortunate it affected gamers, but it's how they operate.

# 366 bkrich83 @ 05/31/11 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kbmnm247


	BECAUSE THEY ARE THE ONES GOING TO THESE LEAGUES AND ASKING FOR EXCLUSIVITY

That's not really true.

# 367 kbmnm247 @ 05/31/11 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bkrich83


	I know for a fact that the NFL went to the companies. And it's obvious why, they get a lot more for the exclusive license than they do with the other 2 or 3 companies purchasing the license. It wasn't even close. VC, simply did not have the financial resources to match the offer from what I gather. But to be honest, I believe the NFL wanted EA to win the license no matter what. I think that's the reason they keep extending the deal. They want EA to have the license as Madden is more than just a brand name at this point, it's part of our culture. Are the Eagles out of market? If they are then you are seeing them from some outside source.. Like I said, if you want to legally watch out of market games, DirecTV is your only source as the NFL has exclusively licensed them for out of market TV. In market that's obviously not the case, but you can thank the FCC for that I believe more than anything else. I have no idea on the licensing of apparel, it seems to change frequently. Also Jerry Jones muddied the water with is attempt at an Adidas deal or however that went down. It's not a moot point though. It goes to show a pattern the NFL has stuck to when it comes to their IP. It's unfortunate it affected gamers, but it's how they operate.

Thanks for a logical and intelligent response and post. I finally feel like I am dealing with a grownup in here and I agree with all that you posted.

I still think EA went to them first, wanted exclusivity and said look, we'll pay you $XXX million for it. It's only smart for the NFL to then turn around and go to the other companies to see what they could/would pay for it and no one else could match EA because of reasons you stated and I agree with. I also tend to agree the NFL might be fine with EA having it because the NFL is obviously making bank off of it and owning EA. But since the NFL gaming market is so huge EA is making bank off of it too, and who gets shafted in all of this? The consumer. THAT is precisely why I am upset about the type of release day DLC EA is selling us.

# 368 bkrich83 @ 05/31/11 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kbmnm247


	Thanks for a logical and intelligent response and post. I finally feel like I am dealing with a grownup in here and I agree with all that you posted. I still think EA went to them first, wanted exclusivity and said look, we'll pay you $XXX million for it. It's only smart for the NFL to then turn around and go to the other companies to see what they could/would pay for it and no one else could match EA because of reasons you stated and I agree with. I also tend to agree the NFL might be fine with EA having it because the NFL is obviously making bank off of it and owning EA. But since the NFL gaming market is so huge EA is making bank off of it too, and who gets shafted in all of this? The consumer. THAT is precisely why I am upset about the type of release day DLC EA is selling us.

Like I said, I pretty much know the NFL approached them, and it does follow their pattern of behavior.

I don't think anyone like exclusivity in the video game market. I buy it every year, but I generally don't end up playing Madden very long. I will say I have enjoyed NCAA the past couple of years.

Imo, given the way the game market has gone, exclusive license or not, I think you'd be seeing this type of DLC anyway. If 2k was still making football games, EA would still be charging for extra features.

I don't have a problem with this DLC (although I'd prefer it to be free obviously) because it's not required to play the game. It's something that allows me to manipulate my OD outside of the framework of the console game. Companies in every industry are looking for new revenue streams. To me this is like paying for an extra option on your car. If you don't want it or it's not that important to you don't buy it.

Maybe it's just me, but I just don't see how you can tie this issue to licensing deals. They are unrelated imo.

# 369 kbmnm247 @ 05/31/11 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bkrich83


	Maybe it's just me, but I just don't see how you can tie this issue to licensing deals. They are unrelated imo.

They aren't necessarily tied. But it makes situations like this get more serious than they would be if there was competition because, as many here have said, "just speak with your wallet and don't buy the game". If there was another NCAA and I wasn't happy with a charge like this I would buy the other game. The way it is now, I can't.

In the same vein with your mention of the extra options in the car... what exactly are we entitled to with our $60 payment each year? Why didn't they charge last year for the computer portion of the Online Dynasty?

# 370 bkrich83 @ 05/31/11 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kbmnm247


	They aren't necessarily tied. But it makes situations like this get more serious than they would be if there was competition because, as many here have said, "just speak with your wallet and don't buy the game". If there was another NCAA and I wasn't happy with a charge like this I would buy the other game. The way it is now, I can't. In the same vein with your mention of the extra options in the car... what exactly are we entitled to with our $60 payment each year? Why didn't they charge last year for the computer portion of the Online Dynasty?

To be fair there's never been a viable option to go to for an NCAA game.

Last year you didn't have the extra options they are offering this year for the computer portion.

# 371 kbmnm247 @ 05/31/11 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bkrich83


	To be fair there's never been a viable option to go to for an NCAA game. Last year you didn't have the extra options they are offering this year for the computer portion.

But there was a computer portion, correct? What makes all of that information so cheap for the servers but the ability to advance my week costs $3 per online dynasty? Why is FIFA UT web app free? That's where my questioning of this charge comes into play. I can't possibly see this causing more server bandwith or stress than the Fifa UT and the NCAA OD do/did.

# 372 bkrich83 @ 05/31/11 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kbmnm247


	But there was a computer portion, correct? What makes all of that information so cheap for the servers but the ability to advance my week costs $3 per online dynasty? Why is FIFA UT web app free? That's where my questioning of this charge comes into play. I can't possibly see this causing more server bandwith or stress than the Fifa UT and the NCAA OD do/did.

Why wouldn't it cause more server bandwidth? One feature basically allows you to play the game via server, which is a lot more bandwidth than any feature last year, and the other is the ability to advance, which I would assume would cause more traffic as well.

They are new features. If they want to charge for them I don't see the issue, particularly since they don't preclude you from playing the game in a manner you always have been able to before.

Do I want them to be free? Absolutely, but in the grand scheme of DLC screw jobs this ranks pretty low on the list.

# 373 NDAlum @ 05/31/11 04:32 PM

To be the commisioner of multiple leagues last year you had to pay.

# 374 NDAlum @ 05/31/11 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bkrich83


	Do I want them to be free? Absolutely, but in the grand scheme of DLC screw jobs this ranks pretty low on the list.

So it's a SCREW JOB!!??

I knew you would come around!!!!

# 375 bkrich83 @ 05/31/11 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NDAlum


	To be the commisioner of multiple leagues last year you had to pay.

I think you had to pay for extra team builder slots or something as well. I didn't buy any NCAA related DLC last year and it had no effect on my enjoyment of the game.

# 376 bkrich83 @ 05/31/11 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NDAlum


	So it's a SCREW JOB!!?? I knew you would come around!!!!

Assimilated!!!

10 char.

# 377 Solidice @ 05/31/11 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bkrich83


	Why wouldn't it cause more server bandwidth? One feature basically allows you to play the game via server, which is a lot more bandwidth than any feature last year, and the other is the ability to advance, which I would assume would cause more traffic as well.

with both the super sim DLC and the advance DLC, you could play the entire 60 year dynasty without ever turning on the console.

# 378 mattbooty @ 05/31/11 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bkrich83


	Why wouldn't it cause more server bandwidth? One feature basically allows you to play the game via server, which is a lot more bandwidth than any feature last year, and the other is the ability to advance, which I would assume would cause more traffic as well.

Without getting pulled back into the actual DLC is it good or bad discussion (cause I said I wouldn't), as an IT professional I will say that its the added processing requirements that will make these features (more) expensive to support. In both advancing and simming games you are taking AI logic that normally is handled by your Xbox 360 and now they need to have servers ready to be able to run all of those calculations on the server side. Bandwidth will play into it somewhat, but processing would be the larger chunk of this. Recruiting logic was little more than a random number generator so it required very little, simming games and advancing (which essentially sims dozens of games plus sims all the recruiting logic) will take signifcantly more. Without proper infrastructure you could see online game simming take minutes between plays while the servers support a lot of people playing simultaneously and advancing take much longer. Hopefully the added cost goes into the proper infrastructure so that doesn't happen.

# 379 bkrich83 @ 05/31/11 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mattbooty


	Without getting pulled back into the actual DLC is it good or bad discussion (cause I said I wouldn't), as an IT professional I will say that its the added processing requirements that will make these features (more) expensive to support. In both advancing and simming games you are taking AI logic that normally is handled by your Xbox 360 and now they need to have servers ready to be able to run all of those calculations on the server side. Bandwidth will play into it somewhat, but processing would be the larger chunk of this. Recruiting logic was little more than a random number generator so it required very little, simming games and advancing (which essentially sims dozens of games plus sims all the recruiting logic) will take signifcantly more. Without proper infrastructure you could see online game simming take minutes between plays while the servers support a lot of people playing simultaneously and advancing take much longer. Hopefully the added cost goes into the proper infrastructure so that doesn't happen.

I have the same technical background, which is why I made what I would call an educated guess on the subject.

# 380 mattbooty @ 05/31/11 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kbmnm247


	But there was a computer portion, correct? What makes all of that information so cheap for the servers but the ability to advance my week costs $3 per online dynasty? Why is FIFA UT web app free? That's where my questioning of this charge comes into play. I can't possibly see this causing more server bandwith or stress than the Fifa UT and the NCAA OD do/did.

I don't know what FIFA UT is so I can't speak for that, but as in the post I just put up, these features will require significantly more processing power than what online recruiting in NCAA 11 and the console based OD features do. Which is expensive.

« Previous 1 2…14 15 16 17 181920 21 22 Next »

More Links

New Features Aren’t All Free in NCAA Football 12