A lot of hand-wringing is going on about EA's monopolization of sports
video
games
and exclusivity deal with the NFL, ESPN, and the imminent end of sports
games. You'll
have to excuse me if I don't think its time to panic yet. Now, before
you label me an EA apologist or discount me as not a sports gamer, let
me say that I've already been through this and frankly, I'm surprised
it took EA this long.
EA Sports has had an exclusive license with FIFA, so that only they can
make an official World Cup game, since 1998. I also think that they
secured exclusive rights through FIFPro to use the names of players who
are members of that union, the worldwide representative for all
professional football players. EA used their exclusivity to churn out
crap soccer games for the last 7 years. Crap games that sold well
because most fans don't really care about the subtleties of the game
engine and how faithfully it might recreate the actual sport's tactics,
feel, and so. They sold well because they have teams and players that
the average sports fan recognizes and because EA focuses heavily on
presentation and eye-candy.
I honestly think EA is simply giving the majority of the market what
they are asking for - most people don't want to do a lot research to
pick one baseball or football game to pick, or want to buy 3 baseball
games each year. They'd rather go with a name they trust or recognize
that has the teams and players they idolize.
So, is there no hope? I think there is. Around 1999, a lot of soccer
fans, me included, started to get sick of EA recycling the same crap
engine in the latest incarnation of FIFA. All that improved were the
graphics, but obvious and subtle game flaws wouldn't be addresses.
There was a version of FIFA we're you could take any player and use a
spin move to blow by all the players between you and the goal - a
guaranteed point. Around that time, Konami slowly and quietly released
International Superstar Soccer. Did it have the teams and players I
knew? Not really. The names of players were a little off, instead of
Portugal's Figo you might have Fijo, and so on. We're the real teams
there, not quite. Manchester United was named simply Manchester. But I
thought you said the teams and players mattered. Well, I said it
mattered to the average fan. For sports video game fans who care about
the game engine, ISS and subsequent releases have been more faithful
recreations of the sport of soccer than EA's FIFA could ever hope to
be. This game was so good that its version for the Gamecube is the
sole reason why I bought the console!
Besides having a better in-game experience, Konami was smart in
including facilities for editing teams, uniforms, and players within
their game. So, while the game couldn't ship with anything recognizable
you could edit the teams and players to match their real life counter
parts. If you're on a PC, or maybe even a net-connected PS2 or XBox,
you could save yourself the tedium of editing by downloading fan-created
roster updates from the Internet. Another gripe against FIFA, the
roster's they would ship the game with were invariably out-of-date by
the time the game hit store shelves. And although EA had included roster
editing facilies in the game, at some point they stripped it out.
Does all this mean I think EA's exclusivity deal is a good thing for
sports video games? Not quite. I do think that it'll lead to fewer
choices in game options since the larger game distributors are not going
to want to risk shipping a sports title without a license, since its a
riskier proposition. I think this leaves room for other publishers who
are willing to focus on in-game mechanics and include robust
roster/player editing facilities to work on a game that is better than
EA's shiny, eye-candy. It may not be sell a gazillion boxes because it
doesn't have the EA hype machine behind it but if done right, there's
no reason it can't be profitable.