Madden NFL 15 News Post

EA Still Owns the NFL License Exclusively

11:32 AM - June 13, 2014 by RaychelSnr

While there has some some question as to the status of the exclusivity of the Madden license, owing to the fact the last mention of the license by EA only said there were a number of years left on it with no mention of exclusivity. That was never a guarantee that the license wasn't exclusive, as EA hadn't mentioned in official documents that the license was either extended or exclusive since the initial deal -- the news of the prior extension was never fully confirmed by EA.

Expecting a different approach where EA held a pomp and circumstance parade has led to a rash of unfounded rumors that another competitor, namely 2K, was developing a football game. There was even an unfounded expectation that 2K might even debut a football title at E3.

However, the biggest news to come out of the 2K camp at E3 might have been Ronnie2K confirming that not only was 2K not working on a football game, but that the license was still exclusively owned by 'someone else.'

This isn't surprising, considering the NFL license being open for other partners would have almost certainly leaked by now by someone. The current deal's term length which has been widely speculated and rumored is that Madden still has two to three years in its current deal, pushing the game well into this new generation.

It still remains unlikely, even if the license was open, that a competitor could rise up to compete with Madden in any reasonable amount of time given the more advanced needs of today's sports gaming audience. Thus, given the license's current status, it is possible that any possible competitor wouldn't be ready for release for at least 18-24 months after the license was actually acquired by someone, which puts the most reasonable timeframe for a Madden competitor at least four to five years from now, if ever. The most likely scenario remains that EA and Madden will remain the only major NFL gaming option on big box consoles for the foreseeable future.

Game: Madden NFL 15Reader Score: 6.5/10 - Vote Now
Platform: PS3 / PS4 / Xbox 360 / Xbox OneVotes for game: 42 - View All

Madden NFL 15 Videos

Member Comments

# 181 LBzrule @ 06/15/14 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hanzsomehanz


	Bingo! 2K cheapened the product! There would be no glaring impetus for the NFL to give exclusive rights If 2K and EA were using the same price points. Sent from my SGH-I727R using Tapatalk

Meeh. The problem I have with this argument is that it takes for granted that the NFL did not know the situation in the NFL football gaming market. That is, it takes for granted that the NFL did not know about the competition between the two development houses and how one house was the big name in the market and the other one needed to do something drastic to get market share.

Second, the Thomas' were quite clear that this would be the only time that the game would be priced this way, indicating that they were giving people a "superior product" to get market share.

Third, it points to the NFL not even looking at 2k5 the game itself and recognizing it as a great product.

So in the end, the argument seems to say, the NFL never even looked at the game, they just looked at the 20 tag and said our product has been "cheapened." I think the NFL knew it had a competitive gaming market. I think they knew this would be the only time 2k had the price this way.

Lastly, if something sells for a cheap price does that mean a product has been "cheapened" in the sense that it seems to be used here, namely, to degrade?

Ehhh one more point, why would the NFL care how much anyone sold the game for when they had already gotten paid? I'd venture to say EA cared more than the NFL did because they had to lower their price and lose money and it pissed them off to no end.

I think the big idea for the NFL and EA is that hey, let's cut this off.
NFL: If you guys pay us more than we can get from all of these other guys paying us to develop a game, we can make it exclusive.
EA: Our development house just got their a$$ beat and those a$$holes over there made us lower the price on our game to compete. We lost money on that. They must be destroyed at all cost.

And that last sentence is not far from verbatim. Six to seven months prior to the exclusive license being signed EA's Jeremy Strauser publicly stated, "We are going to destroy the competition." No one knew what he was talking about at that point.

# 182 LBzrule @ 06/15/14 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iamgramps


	It appears to me that 2k created this situation with their tactics of price slashing. This was an attempt to be cute and take the market share from EA and it back fired. Madden may not be the game a lot of us want, but 2k is to blame. EA fired back and gave 2k some of their own medicine. If 2k would have never opened that door and threatened the NFL brand, MAYBE an exclusive deal would not have come into play.

Again, how was the brand threatened and why would the NFL care when they already got paid from both EA and 2k that year?

# 183 LBzrule @ 06/15/14 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spankdatazz22


	np you have a right to think if you want. Just sounds funny to me. A hypothetical would be if 2K or EA paid the NFL $10 billion dollars for the exclusive NFL license, then decided to give the games away for free. Some act like the NFL would say "Wait a minute - no deal! You have to sell each game at $59.99. Oh, and we tell you what an appropriate sale price is" "And when to have a sale"

I agree. The NFL already received their money that year from both parties. IF anything EA was pissed off they had to lower the price of their game to compete with a game that graphically looked miles better than their game did. The fact is EA lost money and their shareholders were angry especially with the market shifting. There is no doubt they saw this as something that could become a huge problem and their MO was to GET RID OF IT at all cost.

# 184 LBzrule @ 06/15/14 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bukktown


	If he doesn't write code, what's he good for? (Rhetorical question) I believe the biggest problem with Madden is that they use too many gameplay designers. The game of football already exists. COPY IT! There is nothing to "design".

He's a producer. They don't write how linebackers react; OL blocking schemes; DB vs WR play. That's not what producers do. At least when it comes to this game anyways.

# 185 LBzrule @ 06/15/14 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bukktown


	I don't know what other words to use to describe it but over-designed. Maybe they don't have too many designers, just bad ones?

Actually, if your inquiry is into why the game is in the state that it's in I'd say this.

EA has had great producers (IMO). They went out and hired ex-NFL players. They have access to all tape. They talk with coaches every year. So why is the game in the shape that it is in???

I wouldn't care if Ray Lewis was let's say the Producer of Tackling. He can sit there and tell programmers all day long about how tackling is supposed to be and what the outcomes would be, how this angle might produce that result. He's communicating with a programmer. And what he says is trying to be translating onto a computer screen. He can describe things perfectly day in and day out, but that does not mean that it's going to come up on that screen perfectly as he has described it.

We can watch all the videos from E3. EA hired Clint Oldenberg. But look at the OL. They might be blocking "right", but it still doesn't look organic. Same thing from the example above, he can tell them, but that doesn't mean it's going to be perfect in relationship to how he described it.

# 186 hanzsomehanz @ 06/15/14 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LBzrule


	Meeh. The problem I have with this argument is that it takes for granted that the NFL did not know the situation in the NFL football gaming market. That is, it takes for granted that the NFL did not know about the competition between the two development houses and how one house was the big name in the market and the other one needed to do something drastic to get market share. Second, the Thomas' were quite clear that this would be the only time that the game would be priced this way, indicating that they were giving people a "superior product" to get market share. Third, it points to the NFL not even looking at 2k5 the game itself and recognizing it as a great product. So in the end, the argument seems to say, the NFL never even looked at the game, they just looked at the 20 tag and said our product has been "cheapened." I think the NFL knew it had a competitive gaming market. I think they knew this would be the only time 2k had the price this way. Lastly, if something sells for a cheap price does that mean a product has been "cheapened" in the sense that it seems to be used here, namely, to degrade? Ehhh one more point, why would the NFL care how much anyone sold the game for when they had already gotten paid? I'd venture to say EA cared more than the NFL did because they had to lower their price and lose money and it pissed them off to no end. I think the big idea for the NFL and EA is that hey, let's cut this off. NFL: If you guys pay us more than we can get from all of these other guys paying us to develop a game, we can make it exclusive. EA: Our development house just got their a$$ beat and those a$$holes over there made us lower the price on our game to compete. We lost money on that. They must be destroyed at all cost. And that last sentence is not far from verbatim. Six to seven months prior to the exclusive license being signed EA's Jeremy Strauser publicly stated, "We are going to destroy the competition." No one knew what he was talking about at that point.

If it is a matter of terms I can explain but if you simply have differing views I will remain still.

I used the term cheapen literally and in the figurative sense: lit in respect to unit prices and figuratively in what it spoke to the consumer - " other pro sport titles are being sold for much more but here is a solid product you can have for the *cheap cheap."

I used the term impetus to acknowledge that it was the difference in price points (not base product value) that provoked the cry for change - NFL being the mediator, fascilitator, and pivotal partner for the change.

***wish we could quote what the quoter quoted***

I respect your views and I appreciate that you shared that comment about "destroying competition" - never knew that statement existed (in seriousness).

Sent from my SGH-I727R using Tapatalk

# 187 SageInfinite @ 06/15/14 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robo COP


	.....? So let's hear it then "my man." It's easy to pretend like you know more information without actually revealing any of that information. Good job. You totally just won the argument by being condescending while never really revealing you know squat about what happened. You just insinuated you did. Great point. My man. I look forward to you actually contributing your knowledge. Unless you really are just going to leave it at that? I mean, if you really do know more about it, wouldn't it benefit us all if you shared this information?

I didn't pretend like I knew anything. I just stated my opinion. The only one being condescending is you by trying to **** on my opinion by assuming I don't know anything and wouldn't be successful. I was just making the point to not assume things about people you don't know, that's it. We have different opinions and I was leaving it at that.

# 188 hanzsomehanz @ 06/15/14 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FaceMask


	Exactly. The NFL didn't care about the pricing. EA however did care for reasons solely regarding their own profit margins, not wanting to cut the price of Madden to hang on to market share. They said it themselves in the Pecover memos. The whole "The NFL went crazies about $19.99!" is a long-standing inaccurate tale that was told a decade ago in conjecture by internet posters and never died, despite the facts coming out disproving the tale, which most never read. At this point, I just figure too many people believe it now that it will just stay the story people go with. It also doesn't help that there is a guy on YouTube spreading the same misinformation to his thousands of subscribers. I saw a poster mention the facts to him at the top of one vid, but apparently he ignored it because he keeps making videos spreading the misinformation. I sometimes wonder if some of these guys are paid to do that kind of thing, like disinfo agents or something.

Prestige warrants a price!

If other pro sports are being sold for xyz why enter the market and sell yours for abc?

Get on you xyz's or get out: 2K got *punted out of the NFL Football gaming market. If they want to sell for $19.99 they can now go sell a non-NFL licensed product for that said quote.

If I introduce a new footwear line that is by face value on the same level of Nike and Under Armour in respect to prestige: why sell it at Walmart prices, even for one year - why?

Why would a company like Sfarbucks sell cheaper than their competitors? Starbucks has a prestige to maintain - you're selling social value as much as you are price to product value when you put prestige in perspective.

EA has much more social value in Electronic Football than anyone else - they always have but who is 2K to come in and offer *half-price for the same NFL licensed product?

What is your view on the NFL prestige? Should the NFL not expect to see their (video game) products sold in line with the other major sport competitors?

Why should an NFL team hat go for much less than an MLB or NBA hat? Do bobble heads not all sell for about the same unit price regardless of sport?

You want to speak on conspiracy theories but I say: if you speak on this subject without respecting prestige: you are being totally absent minded to the major scope of this argument and fallout re; the NFL liscense.

EA and the NFL make better prestigious partners than TakeTwo and NFL.

Good luck seeing the NFL partner with some cheap Joe Snow line of footwear over Nike or UA - $19.99 does not speak the NFL language of prestige - not when your competitors are selling their sport titles for double that price.

Learn a lesson from all this or you will do as 2K did and lose in your market too because you will lose the battle of prestige - it is the same pull that gets college recruits to favor one side over another.

The $19.99 quote is what muddied the waters - not much else was an impetus for either side.

Sent from my SGH-I727R using Tapatalk

# 189 kjcheezhead @ 06/15/14 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CM Hooe


	The NFL is far from a stranger to exclusivity agreements - be it apparel, beer, soda, credit cards, or anything else. Not sure why the NFL continuing an exclusive arrangement in video games which continues to prove lucrative for the league would surprise anyone.

Every example on your list is a product that can be replaced with a new company in almost no time at all. Also all an exclusive deal with Coke means to me is that only Coke products will be sold in stadium. It has no effect on me as a consumer buying soda anywhere else.

You're a developer, I'm not. But I know video games are a different beast. It takes a couple years to develop a game, and then companies build off that foundation. With a new exclusive of several years, EA will have 5 years of development put into their game on these consoles alone. A new developer won't be able to deliver a game that can beat madden when the license opens up. So the NFL is doing EA a huge favor and hurting themselves at the negotiating table long term.

# 190 Hooe @ 06/15/14 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big FN Deal


	Ok first off you stated that, *"EA is STILL making more money than they ever did when they had that competition. Why would they care? Why would they want that competition back if they are making more money?"* However going by these links, the stock price for EA was at the highest ever in 2004, during competition and down a little less than half that now. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/20...rs-of-a-buyout http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/ea

A few things:

1 - there's a litany of factors which have affected EA's stock price since 2004, some of which cannot be discussed here; between external factors and that EA is a massive company, to solely peg a lower stock price on the NFL exclusivity arrangement is shortsighted at best

2 - stock price is not company revenue

3 - looking at EA's investor reports, their net income was higher in FY 2013 than FY 2005 by about half a billion dollars; I don't know if that is "their highest ever" but they are bringing in more money right now than they did as a company in the pre-exclusivity world

# 191 Hooe @ 06/15/14 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kjcheezhead


	Every example on your list is a product that can be replaced with a new company in almost no time at all. Also all an exclusive deal with Coke means to me is that only Coke products will be sold in stadium. It has no effect on me as a consumer buying soda anywhere else. You're a developer, I'm not. But I know video games are a different beast. It takes a couple years to develop a game, and then companies build off that foundation. With a new exclusive of several years, EA will have 5 years of development put into their game on these consoles alone. A new developer won't be able to deliver a game that can beat madden when the license opens up. So the NFL is doing EA a huge favor and hurting themselves at the negotiating table long term.

Video games are a different beast, yes.

That said, how is the NFL hurting themselves? They are getting their money from EA, and their brand is being represented by a product which sells very well and the critical consensus of said product is that it is at least "good", sometimes "great".

If Madden were truly seen by the vast majority of people as a low-quality product, the NFL might consider changing partners. Currently there's no reason for them to do this.

# 192 SageInfinite @ 06/15/14 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CM Hooe


	A few things: 1 - there's a litany of factors which have affected EA's stock price since 2004, some of which cannot be discussed here; between external factors and that EA is a massive company, to solely peg a lower stock price on the NFL exclusivity arrangement is shortsighted at best 2 - stock price is not company revenue 3 - looking at EA's investor reports, their net income was higher in FY 2013 than FY 2005 by about half a billion dollars; I don't know if that is "their highest ever" but they are bringing in more money right now than they did as a company in the pre-exclusivity world

So basically 1 and 3 could have nothing to do with the exclusive license?

# 193 Blzer @ 06/15/14 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 24


	This wouldn't be as depressing if It wasn't for the fact that EA continually puts out an average product. The New Madden's are never great but they are never terrible either. They are just in between. I popped in 2K5 into my 360 today and played a quick game. While The graphics were little dated (That's to be expected considering it's 10 years old) It certainly didn't look bad. It played amazingly well and once the game was finished I was satsified that I got an adequate Football gaming experience. I throw in Madden 25 into my PS4, and While I enjoyed the game I played, I kept looking for something more. That's the way I've felt about Madden since 2009. The game itself is good, It's just missing something.

I honestly think, and it may just be me, that the camera and the controls are one thing that really separates the two. Also, the "feel" of the controls. Madden feels very "slidey" while 2K feels very "pinpoint" or "rigid" with controls. Plus, I love the "tap to sprint, hold to charge" concept. IMO if 2K made another football game and got rid of that, I would be very displeased.

With regard to the camera, 2K's is much more narrowly focused, which is kind of nice. It also follows the height of the football, something that is very underrated to me. Just these little things seem to go a long, long way. Commentary was of course another thing. I sometimes would be drowned out by Madden's commentary, but 2K's is so in your face that you just can't miss it... nor can you coach it.

I seriously think if Madden worked on those three things I'm talking about, it would go in the positive direction toward the things it's missing. I think it's improved on a couple of things for M15 in the visuals department though, because their models were always lacking too. And just an EA nitpick here, but I don't really like their font or menu design. Small and personal, but as long as we're on the topics of what I prefer, I thought I'd say that. Then again, I haven't liked any 2K game menus since the 2K7 games either.

# 194 kjcheezhead @ 06/15/14 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CM Hooe


	Video games are a different beast, yes. That said, how is the NFL hurting themselves? They are getting their money from EA, and their brand is being represented by a product which sells very well and the critical consensus of said product is that it is at least "good", sometimes "great".

Because you can only get top dollar if multiple companies want your license. The NFL has given EA every advantage so that Sony, Microsoft, 2k can never get into football market and be competitive. So why should EA pay the NFL what they did in 2005? Who is the NFL going approach who will offer anything near that? Especially now that game day, fever and 2k have been dead since the ps2 days.

# 195 hanzsomehanz @ 06/15/14 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FaceMask


	Lots of interesting things there. I understand what you think is an issue, and I can understand why the general consumer would look at it that way, but it's all conjecture. This is not how the NFL was thinking at the time, nor are they today. As long as they're getting paid 10's of Millions upfront, they're not going to care what the retail price of a product is. It doesn't work that way. This was purely an EA vs. 2K issue concerning pricing, profit margin and market share. Besides, 2K wasn't planning to keep the price at that level forever. This was a one-time thing to gain market visibility, and boy did it work. For as much as their is conjecture about cheapening, what nobody is considering is how confident 2K had to be that their product would be responded to in the way it was. Had it bombed, it would've likely ended their development on football. Everything they did that year was white knuckle and rebellious, and I loved every minute of it. Unfortunately, football development ended anyway because of the licensing issue, but 2K did take a huge leap of faith there because they believed in themselves that their product deserved more share because it was good enough, and I agreed with them. So did about 4.26 Million others.

Wait, what in your view helped EA secure the deal then opposed to sooner?

The project did bomb - considering their competition: a price slash that significant is an act of desperation, moreover a concession to defeat.

If the NFL had faith in your vision of their plans: they would let their vision play out and have the consumer base divided between the lot of 2K lovers and EA lovers and have competition continue to drive higher demand - all the while they could be raising the value of the shared license.

If the NFL only cared for the dollars and EA was the firstest with the mostest - why not settle w EA sooner? Was the $19.99 quote a blessing in disguise for the NFL in that it compelled EA to act swift out of insecurity?

Does the NFL not see that eventually EA can scrap the sole exclusive title and sign a restructured deal for a shared liscense?

So, in your view, who is the Pied Piper here and who is the company being deceived and led astray?

What I takeaway: you are simply illustrating that money talks and EA simply raised their offer on gaining exclusive rights until the NFL said "deal".

Would this predicament of an outcome we are in now then be inevitable based on your illustration that the NFL lisence was bought out like a harlot to the highest bidder?

Perhaps 2K was never suited to stay.

Not knowing those numbers, I would imagine the price covers what they both currently paid to the NFL as a shared liscense and then some.

If, again, it was merely about raising the stakes, why defend 2K for even joining the market if they never stood a chance to survive: considrring EA always held the upperhand and stood with a fincancial foothold on the market?

A leap of faith, indeed.

Sent from my SGH-I727R using Tapatalk

# 196 spankdatazz22 @ 06/15/14 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hanzsomehanz


	What I takeaway: you are simply illustrating that money talks and EA simply raised their offer on gaining exclusive rights until the NFL said "deal". Would this predicament of an outcome we are in now then be inevitable based on your illustration that the NFL lisence was bought out like a harlot to the highest bidder?

Perhaps you should stop looking at the situation only from an NFL perspective. You seem to be ignoring that the NCAA football and Arena Football League licenses also went exclusive, all within a week or two of it happening with the NFL. Again, it takes a ridiculous leap of logic to assume they were all coincidences. Especially when you consider 2K or Sony weren't even making college football games at the time. And neither had attempted an Arena League game.

EA had.

And through some miracle all these entities decided at once to make their licenses exclusive at the same time. They basically decided to raise their licensing fees to an amount [that had to be more than what they would've gotten collectively from multiple suitors] at a time when no one other than EA was showing interest in their properties. Give me a break.

EA acted to keep 2K or anyone else from making a legitimate football game by locking up every major U.S. football license - period.

# 197 Kramer5150 @ 06/15/14 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spankdatazz22


	EA acted to keep 2K or anyone else from making a legitimate football game by locking up every major U.S. football license - period.

EA also locked up the ESPN license too around that time if I'm not mistaken...they not only wanted football locked up,but also wanted to lock up any game using ESPN broadcasting....which coincidentally was used by 2k as well.

# 198 Hooe @ 06/15/14 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SageInfinite


	So basically 1 and 3 could have nothing to do with the exclusive license?

The short answer to the question is "yes".

The long answer is that I think that they're both just small pieces to a bigger puzzle whose scope is beyond sports video games and even video games.

# 199 Robo COP @ 06/15/14 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big FN Deal


	Ok first off you stated that, *"EA is STILL making more money than they ever did when they had that competition. Why would they care? Why would they want that competition back if they are making more money?"* However going by these links, the stock price for EA was at the highest ever in 2004, during competition and down a little less than half that now. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/20...rs-of-a-buyout http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/ea Secondly you stated, "Oh and let us not forget that THE NFL WAS THE ONE WHO WAS SHOPPING THEIR EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS AROUND. EA didn't just say hey, let us buy the rights to get rid of the competition. The NFL MADE THIS HAPPEN!" However according to these links EA had been lobbying for a NFL exclusive license for years prior and admitted to buying the rights to get rid of competition, in court documents. http://www.gamespot.com/articles/big.../1100-6114977/ http://easportslitigation.com/pdf/Pa...20Part%201.pdf

stock prices have absolutely nothing to do with the revenue brought in from a video game. Absolutely nothing. The decline in economy and the recession have to do with why their stock prices dropped. Has no correlation whatsoever to the amount of money brought in from Madden.

Alright. However it doesn't matter if EA was lobbying for the rights for years. When the NFL was shopping them they fielded offers from both 2K and EA. EA didn't just make a deal without 2K ever realizing it. 2K had a chance to make the deal and failed to deliver in that regard

Quote:

Originally Posted by SageInfinite


	I didn't pretend like I knew anything. I just stated my opinion. The only one being condescending is you by trying to **** on my opinion by assuming I don't know anything and wouldn't be successful. I was just making the point to not assume things about people you don't know, that's it. We have different opinions and I was leaving it at that.

Sorry about that. I didn't realize you were the same person I was having the back and forth with before (it was late and I was skimming through).

All I can say is, this is kind of my area of expertise. So it's frustrating when people come in throwing out statements of this and that when they are clearly seeing it through the eye of the consumers. I'm not saying that that is necessarily a bad thing, but if you flip the tables and put yourself on the business side of it it is very clear to see why EA did what they did. I can understand being mad about it all as a consumer (like I said I now hate Madden because it is so terrible IMO) but you can't villainize EA when they did the most logical thing they possibly could have done.

Maybe they should've followed up the licensing agreement with hiring the entire 2K crew to work on Madden

# 200 SageInfinite @ 06/15/14 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robo COP


	Sorry about that. I didn't realize you were the same person I was having the back and forth with before (it was late and I was skimming through). All I can say is, this is kind of my area of expertise. So it's frustrating when people come in throwing out statements of this and that when they are clearly seeing it through the eye of the consumers. I'm not saying that that is necessarily a bad thing, but if you flip the tables and put yourself on the business side of it it is very clear to see why EA did what they did. I can understand being mad about it all as a consumer (like I said I now hate Madden because it is so terrible IMO) but you can't villainize EA when they did the most logical thing they possibly could have done. Maybe they should've followed up the licensing agreement with hiring the entire 2K crew to work on Madden

No problem man. I personally never said the move was a bad business move. It was a power "checkmate" type move that only companies with resources like EA could make. Totally understand it.

Coming onto this site as strictly a gamer, I can only speak with passion from that perspective. I just know how I think as a person. Maybe I would be successful running EA, maybe I'd be fired the first day, lol, who knows.

I would have so much more respect for EA as a gamer had they tried to pacify the fans who they just newly acquired through the licensing by making a game that was more of a hybrid and as you said, taking on some of 2k's staff if they wanted to continue to work on an NFL game, to give us something to make us totally forget 2k football ever existed.

As a business minded man, they don't have to do anything but stay in business and continue to increase revenue and make the money they spent acquiring the license pay off. Basically just stay at the top like they've been.

Again EA/Tiburon is marketing this game as a sim now, so hopefully in the near future we won't be having any conversations like this, we'll all be too busy playing the awesome game known as Madden, but we'll see.

« Previous 1 2…7 8 91011 12 13…18 19 Next »

More Links

EA Still Owns the NFL License Exclusively