PDA

View Full Version : EA: How About Auctioning off the Madden Cover Spot to a Player?


DoctorFinger
10-28-2008, 12:14 PM
I don't know whether this story makes me want to cackle maniacally, or put my head down and cry. Peter Moore, president of the EA Sports division, knows how much the illustrious cover spot on his Madden series of games means to NFL players (Madden curse aside). So Moore is floating a radical idea: auctioning off the cover spot to NFL players.Peter Moore, president of video game-maker EA Sports, said discussions are taking place within his company that could have the front cover of its biggest-selling ``Madden NFL'' football game sold to the highest bidder, with all proceeds going to the United Way, the NFL's charity partner. NFL players tend to be huge fans of the title, and charity games between players have been organized in the past. But Moore's assertion that players would pay for the privilege of being on the cover is, to say the least, bold.

Sources - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601079&sid=aRHLjRFrnUkQ); 1UP (http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3170952).

pomeroy
10-28-2008, 12:18 PM
It's for charity...I don't see the problem.

quidmonkey
10-28-2008, 12:32 PM
It's for charity...I don't see the problem.

Even if it wasn't, I don't see the problem. I'd love to see some no name player make the cover and become infamous.

Karak
10-28-2008, 12:40 PM
Ah Peter Moore. Impressive most impressive.
He is what of my favorite guys.

Doctor Setebos
10-28-2008, 12:41 PM
Yes, the money is going to charity, but this is a particularly ominous situation. Now, the Madden cover is essentially for sale. Maybe the money goes to United Way for a couple of years, and then when Madden 2012 is ready, they quietly neglect to mention the charity, but still hold the cover auction. Then, they start doing it for ALL their sports covers. They make billions.

It's EA. Don't think for a second it isn't possible.

Also, I like how this article is tagged "greed (http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/tags.php?tag=greed)". :rolleyes:

pheriannath
10-28-2008, 12:41 PM
I've got no problem with this, especially if they're gonna donate the proceeds to charity.

Loki_09
10-28-2008, 12:55 PM
Yes, the money is going to charity, but this is a particularly ominous situation. Now, the Madden cover is essentially for sale. Maybe the money goes to United Way for a couple of years, and then when Madden 2012 is ready, they quietly neglect to mention the charity, but still hold the cover auction. Then, they start doing it for ALL their sports covers. They make billions.

It's EA. Don't think for a second it isn't possible.

Also, I like how this article is tagged "greed (http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/tags.php?tag=greed)". :rolleyes:

I've been thinking for a few seconds that it isn't possible. If it somehow got to the point where the charity wasn't involved anymore, I would bet the majority of the players would not be willing to shell out millions for their face on a game cover. And if a player is stupid enough to shell out the $$ for it (minus the charity), kudos to EA for exploiting over-paid athletes.

TheFlyingOrc
10-28-2008, 12:57 PM
Because it's like paying to get injured next season. :)

Wraith
10-28-2008, 01:15 PM
I just wonder if there would ever be a situation where the winning bidder isn't really who EA wants on the cover.

Orca
10-28-2008, 01:17 PM
Pacman Jones would buy it, just to spite the commish.

agentgray
10-28-2008, 01:31 PM
I want some rich kid wannabe from Malibu to outbid and win.

Wraith
10-28-2008, 01:40 PM
I want some rich kid wannabe from Malibu to outbid and win.SLR Guy would be perfect...

http://jalopnik.com/assets/resources/2008/06/SLR-Guy.jpg (http://jalopnik.com/395947/douche-wrecks-mercedes-mclaren-slr-thus-is-born-slr-guy)

JayVe
10-28-2008, 02:22 PM
Honestly, I'm shocked this hasn't been done already.

itchyeyes
10-28-2008, 02:24 PM
Yes, the money is going to charity, but this is a particularly ominous situation. Now, the Madden cover is essentially for sale. Maybe the money goes to United Way for a couple of years, and then when Madden 2012 is ready, they quietly neglect to mention the charity, but still hold the cover auction. Then, they start doing it for ALL their sports covers. They make billions.
I still don't see how that's a problem. I mean, it's a freaking cover. As long as it doesn't effect what's inside the box, I don't see how it hurts anyone. In fact, I find it vastly preferable to in-game advertising, which these games are already soaked through with.

No offense, but it seems like some people just get some violent negative reaction every time they see the words EA and money in the same sentence. Maybe I'm just not seeing this the right way, but I cannot figure out how this would negatively impact anyone involved. And with the proceeds going to charity, I really have to question the judgment of people who are objecting to this.

digitalErich
10-28-2008, 02:30 PM
I fully endorse separating obscenely rich people and their money and then giving that money to a good cause. Nice work Mr. Moore.

People complaining about this just see EA and feel compelled to complain, even if it makes no sense.

Doctor Setebos
10-28-2008, 02:31 PM
I still don't see how that's a problem. I mean, it's a freaking cover. As long as it doesn't effect what's inside the box, I don't see how it hurts anyone. In fact, I find it vastly preferable to in-game advertising, which these games are already soaked through with.

No offense, but it seems like some people just get some violent negative reaction every time they see the words EA and money in the same sentence. Maybe I'm just not seeing this the right way, but I cannot figure out how this would negatively impact anyone involved. And with the proceeds going to charity, I really have to question the judgment of people who are objecting to this.I reject your reality and substitute my own.

Telefrog
10-28-2008, 02:55 PM
1. The money goes to charity. What's the problem?

2. Even if this does degenerate into later EA Sports titles just offering the cover for sale, so what? They're already chock full of ads. Don't all the ads just "make sports games more realistic" according to some of you anyway?

pomeroy
10-28-2008, 03:14 PM
2. Even if this does degenerate into later EA Sports titles just offering the cover for sale, so what? They're already chock full of ads. Don't all the ads just "make sports games more realistic" according to some of you anyway?

I get that they are ads, but some of them really do make the game feel like realistic. In NCAA '09, the Pontiac Game Changing Performance replay is exactly like what goes on when you watch a game. So it doesn't really upset me.

It gets weirder in stuff like NBA games where you buy name brand shoes. More realistic, but it doesn't really add anything either.

Mot Wakorb
10-28-2008, 03:27 PM
Here's the thing: Peter Moore on saying this kind of thing, while bold, probably has Supreme Overlord Goodell happy - makes the NFL players look good because it's all going to the United Way, makes EA look good for it, makes the United Way some charity money, I'm failing to see the problem. If Goodell gets involved, you can be damn sure that EA won't make a dime off of the cover athlete because what the Supreme Overlord wants, he gets. It's his world, we're just playing in it.

Good on EA for giving it to charity.

shunoshi
10-28-2008, 03:41 PM
Because it's like paying to get injured next season. :)

This is so true, why would you want to pay to get injured for the season. That doesn't sound like a good idea to me...even for charity. :p

Sandman
10-28-2008, 03:46 PM
Is the curse dead now or something? I know it had an off year but that doens't make it dead.

rinichanraar
10-28-2008, 03:56 PM
Because it's like paying to get injured next season. :)

That's what I was thinking. But it's okay since it's for a good cause! ;)

digitalErich
10-28-2008, 03:58 PM
Is the curse dead now or something? I know it had an off year but that doens't make it dead.
Isn't a curse dead once it fails one cycle? One break is "breaking the curse", right?

Grifter
10-28-2008, 04:09 PM
I don't really follow sports EA or other wise but hasn't it been a couple years since the curse has claimed any victims?

For the record, I highly support this idea even if it only lasts two seasons that is still two seasons of what will most likely be two very large sums of cash helping people that otherwise wouldn't have it. I don't see how anyone can spin this negatively without sounding like the fool. Even if EA only donated a quarter instead of it all (I hope that doesn't become the case) it's still far more money going to the right places than most of us could ever afford.

Score another one for gamers and our industry.

digitalErich
10-28-2008, 04:12 PM
Yep, any percentage of the money going to charity is a good thing. What's the alternative? EA pays the Player's Association and the NFL for usage rights. Fuck that.

MagGnome
10-28-2008, 04:53 PM
The new EA donates to charity!

Sandman
10-28-2008, 04:59 PM
Isn't a curse dead once it fails one cycle? One break is "breaking the curse", right?

Well technically the curse could have been thrown off a bit by Farve being retired and then returning.

Johan
10-28-2008, 05:49 PM
Moore's assertion that players would pay for the privilege of being on the cover is, to say the least, bold.

You know, professional athletes are often very confident, but I'm not sure too many of them want to be known as the one who PAID to be on the cover of Madden. Somehow, that seems just too much.

Give the money to charity and put the names of those who donate in the liner/manual (ha...manual; try sticky note) notes.

Variable Gear
10-28-2008, 05:54 PM
Give the money to charity and put the names of those who donate in the liner/manual (ha...manual; try sticky note) notes.
God, EA's manuals blow. They are all monochrome and four pages long. :(

J Arcane
10-28-2008, 05:58 PM
United Way isn't much of a charity, I don't know of any other out there, not even Goodwill, that has been more criticized for consuming the vast majority of donated funds on bogus "administrative expenses".

They could've picked a jillion better charities than that one.

MagGnome
10-28-2008, 07:08 PM
United Way isn't much of a charity, I don't know of any other out there, not even Goodwill, that has been more criticized for consuming the vast majority of donated funds on bogus "administrative expenses".

They could've picked a jillion better charities than that one.

Yeah, I've long thought that any charity that can afford to advertise itself as much as the United Way does is probably wasting money that could be better spent helping those in need. A lot of the really big charities funnel a significant portion of their donations towards "costs" rather than spending that money on the things people donate for in the first place. It's really unfortunate.

Johan
10-28-2008, 07:59 PM
United Way isn't the "poster child" for keeping administrative costs low, but they have a major feature in their favor; the vast majority of the money you give them works locally. That's a very enticing factor for people who give AND want their philanthropy to make a difference locally.