It starts... Daley threatening to pull out of Diaz fight...

The only other thing he can do, is go and fight for King Of The Cage. Won't make spit for them, but it will still give him fights in the U.S. and might give him a chance to make better money. K-1 is almost done...((Hope Not)) and MMA in Japan is in a bad way.

 

I didn't say it was. I don't think the UFC should be hold fighters to multiple fight contracts. I'm arguing that promotional companies should only be able to hold fighters on a fight by fight basis.

 

Randy Couture is a big name in MMA he sells PPV. Losing ihn for the game but keeping that revenue and name recognition is the lesser of two evils for a business stand point. Look at the Brock v Randy buy numbers for concrete proof. And at his age he's not going to appear in these games forever. You need young blood to keep this ticking over. And the UFC has more than enough big names signed to exclusive image right contracts to make the game sellable Brock, Crop cop, Shogun, Machida, BJ, GSP, Matt Hughes on so on. But EA had Randy and Fedor

And the young blood is gonna have to sign with the UFC to make a name for themselves. Randy was the exception that proves the rule in this case, not proof that the UFC is flexible on these matters. That leave EA with no option as Ive pointed out in my previous post. I think Scurls point was that over time Strikeforce could have signed or bred their own marquee names to help the EA franchise as well as PPV's or however and org makes money

Can you see this point now?

 

Multiple fight contracts is what initially locks the fighters in. They allow Zuffa to say if you allow your likeness on this video game, then you can't fight here. Oh, and by the way, you can't fight elsewhere because you have 2 fights left on our contract.

You can't where that T-Shirt because they are not an approved sponsor. If you where that shirt, you can't fight. You can't fight elsewhere, because you have a fight with us left on your contract.

 

That was not his point. Here is what he said

"Newsflash EA MAKE MONEY OFF THE FRANCHISE. They STILL continue to make money from it. Irrespective of wether they will make a sequel, or or not there is a contractual agreement between the fighters and EA. That my friend has **** all to do with Zuffa. EA have the economic might to completely destroy the UFC. Im pretty sure it won't come to that. But nonetheless it will still be interesting to see "how" Zuffa will approach this when it is Dana/UFC that took issue with EA's game and the fighters that made agreements with them."

That is clearly referring to Dana White trying to prevent fighters or EA making money of the current game. Complete fantasy land.

As I already said I don't think we'd ever get another game. EA went against its usual MO of getting the biggest licences possible and basing the game on them. Didn't work. That's not anything unique to MMA - the same thing is true with other sports where unlicensed games usually do badly (pro evo was the one exception and it had to start playing the licence game to stay competitive).

There is also the wider issue about how much interest there is MMA video games. UFC/THQ massively misjudged the market in 2010 as was seen by the massive reduction in sales. They're now going on a bi-annual schedule (ironically the schedule that EA had planned) which is probably wise. Most niche sports have one major franchise and it doesn't have the regular updates of the American Big Four and Soccer. The same will be true of MMA.

I mean I hope I'm wrong. I liked the EA game...thought it had a few issues in terms of the wrestling (way, way too easy to sweep) but the submission game and the standup was far superior to Undisputed. And I hoped EA would have the sense to us its boxing licences to do a 'VS' game between boxers and fighters. Klitschko vs Fedor would be fun to play.

 

Its like that slave contract footballers are made to sign. When you sign with a team they make you play for just that team for the length of the contract - they won't allow you to play the odd game for somebody else. They make you sign away your image rights so that they can use them in their promotional materials. They can decide whether to play or your not. They make you wear the logos of their sponsors, even though all the money goes directly to the club. What utter ******* are those clubs.

 

OK Will one more go. Scurla's point as I saw it was that what ever the faults in the game mechanics they had the money to COMPETE. Look at franchises such as Fight Night and Fifa. EA are the masters of improving franchised games yearly. Scurlas point was they have they financial clout to do it, if they so desired. Now an MMA game franchise is going to be a UFC exclusive.

And my point was without the UFC monopolising the best roster there were still enough big names such as Hendo, Fedor and Randy to make the games marketable.

All that is gone as of yesterday. Are EA really gonna put time and effort into developing a franchise if in 2020 they still have the same fighters on the games that they have now. Because the next Andersons, Fedors and GSP's are going to be on Undisputed 2020 arent they?

 

HAHA! :thumbsup
Im just calling this as I see it

 

Again I don't accept that was his point. If it was why was he talking about EA taking the UFC to court?

As for your point I believed I answered that directly. We were already in a situation where the only marketable licence is the UFC. If you don't have that, you don't have anything.