EA Sports College Football coming back!

[Kodos]

Was hoping for Summer '23, but I guess it is a good sign that they are taking their time. I'll probably try to get one more dynasty in NCAA '14 before then.

I hope somebody is working on a college basketball game too.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Dang. I was hoping summer of '22, but I guess good that they are taking their time and hopefully making sure they put out something that's solid.

Originally Posted by Kodos

Was hoping for Summer '23, but I guess it is a good sign that they are taking their time. I'll probably try to get one more dynasty in NCAA '14 before then.

I hope somebody is working on a college basketball game too.

Heh.

[QuikSand]

evergreen

[Kodos]

si.com

A year from now, we will be almost back in business after a decade without a new game.

Matt Brown, publisher of college football newsletter Extra Points, has reported that EA is investing more resources into creating a more in-depth Dynasty Mode, with someone at the company saying Dynasty will be the "flagship game mode for EA Sports College Football."

For those who haven't played the old NCAA Football for a while, Dynasty Mode gives players the opportunity to essentially create their own college football program.

That means you can do everything from creating the team that goes on the field to the entire recruiting process.

https://247sports.com/article/ncaa-f...ase-210638513/

Fans clamored for years on what they want developers to include in the game, from updated uniforms and stadiums, to the College Football Playoff and transfer portal, there's a ton of ground to cover in the next installment.

EA Sports vice president and general manager Daryl Holt told ESPN last year that improving the game after a near-decade long hiatus is a major undertaking considering how much college football has changed since its last release in 2014.

"That's the best date for us to bring the game that we think is going to meet or exceed our player expectations," Holt said. "And cover the breadth and scale of what we want in the game. We're trying to build a very immersive college football experience."

Tentatively titled EA College Football, the game's revival has sparked a massive response from fans of the franchise, which has been defunct for nearly 10 years after issues arose over name, image and likeness.

[bronconick]

They say that now, but in six months some execs will order everything be dropped to shove in hordes of microtransactions, leaving Dynasty mode being from 2010 or so. It's EA, after all.

[GrantDawg]

And so it begins:
Just a moment...

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

And so it begins:
Just a moment...

TBH I'd be happy with generic players and, if necessary, even generic teams.

I'm sure some enterprising fans will create accurate & downloadable versions.

[HomerSimpson98]

Originally Posted by Edward64

TBH I'd be happy with generic players and, if necessary, even generic teams.

No

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Edward64

TBH I'd be happy with generic players and, if necessary, even generic teams.

I'm sure some enterprising fans will create accurate & downloadable versions.

I'd be happy with just the real teams.

[GrantDawg]

They won't have generic teams. They already have that deal in place. But I would bet there won't be full rosters of real players to start. There is better odds they have to go full generic.

[Solecismic]

O'Bannon v. NCAA scares the hell out of me. Mostly because of EA's desire to keep it settled in such a way that it eviscerates the publicity defense from the Lanham Act (which I rely upon) and locks out all potential competition.

The NFLPA has apparently looked over my shoulder quite a bit over the years, but they're aware that I'm such small potatoes that they'd gain nothing from going after me. When leagues went after fantasy sports, they lost. When they went after parody sports cards, they lost.

I read those cases and tailored my business to the decisions. Lines I wouldn't cross, like using pictures of players. When I promote my game, I'm careful only to use screen shots from entirely fictional universes. But O'Bannon expands the right of publicity so much that Lanham might as well line the proverbial bird cage. I'm not sure what I'd do if I got back in this game, but I do know that I'm not interested in another college game for any reason.

EA wins when there's an opportunity to purchase exclusive rights. Because they can set a price that bars competition and use the exclusivity to generate enough sales to make those high rights fees trivial to them. It's a great business model.

But what's happening now is that once rights are established, they have a greater value. They're offering so much more to 99% of players that would be in the game that they'd be delighted to go with it. But it's that 1% of players who, once organized, can demand individual deals. No players' association to collectively bargain this. Every single college player has the right to set his own price. EA, of course, can tell them it's $500 or they're not in the game. But this 1% of players are the reason why anyone's getting any money.

I was surprised when EA announced it was picking up the game again. But they ended up screwing themselves in the end. They wanted the entire enchilada, no competition, and they guided O'Bannon to a conclusion that really doesn't serve anyone well.

[JPhillips]

How is this different from a political sim where real politicians are used but not compensated?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

They wanted the entire enchilada, no competition, and they guided O'Bannon to a conclusion that really doesn't serve anyone well.

Clarify something for me, if you don't mind.

What did the ruling do to the legal status of community-created mods that would insert real players?

There's something in the back of my mind somewhere that wants to say that there was at least a suggestion that it would no longer be enough that the developers not directly _promote_ mods that did such a thing but that there was at least risk (?) if developers _allowed_ their game to be modded in such a way.

Did I just completely dream that?

[RainMaker]

From my understanding, the community creations was never really ruled on since EA settled. I'd imagine it would be subject to the same standards as other video games that have them.

The issue seemed to be them creating rosters where the attributes were identical to the players but without the name. And since it was settled, we don't know if they would have won that.

[Solecismic]

Let's say you're out one day and someone assaults you and steals your wallet. That person is arrested, maybe ends up serving time.

There's no question you can file a civil suit as well. If the perpetrator had millions of dollars, you'd easily find a lawyer to take the case. Otherwise, a lawyer would tell you that it's not enough to win a civil case. You have to be able to collect the money. Can't collect money from someone who doesn't have it. And it's difficult to collect money from someone who refuses to pay it.

The recording industry made a name for itself decades ago, when Napster was flaunting copyright law, going after individuals, getting quick settlements with the threat of expensive lawsuits. So there's always that threat when it comes to "community mods" or anything like that.

But was it worthwhile for the recording industry? Was the harm to their reputations bigger than the token amounts they got for copyright infractions?

Promoting specific community mods would be the same as publishing them. But allowing mods and not promoting them? Seems impossible. Any graphic can be changed - if not through developer tools, through something like ResHack. That would be like suing a tee-shirt company if someone downloaded a picture of a popular player, printed it on an iron-on transfer, then applied it to the tee-shirt.

In short, you probably didn't dream it, but people threaten legal action all the time. It's one thing to claim you have a case. It's entirely another to find a lawyer to take it or go to the expense of filing it.

In my case, I have to weigh the knowledge that I'm too small to be worth anyone's attention against the "dream" we all have of striking it big and doing what we can to create the best possible product.

My product is better with "real" players. It gives people an important frame of reference. So I want to include player files. I've read enough law to feel safe about my decision to do so back in 1998. I have no desire to mislead anyone about publicity or endorsements. But it's a very different legal world today and not getting sued is perhaps more important than whether you're right or wrong.

Regarding political sims: Libel and slander law relates to the "public versus private" individual standard. Anyone who runs for a major office is clearly a public figure. You could argue a football player is as well. But there's so much precedent out there about politicians and controlling speech and the value of the right to publicity as it pertains to a political computer simulation is negligible. Endorsement would be the focus.

So unless the developer made the mistake of claiming a particular candidate endorsed the sim or used it to libel the candidate (and that's a hard case to prove with a public figure), I don't see any risk involved at all.

[bhlloy]

Didn’t Football Manager get sued by Manchester United and agreed to block modding their badge/kit/name in the game and also to go after any third party site offering logo packs at some point in the last few years? Maybe that is what you are referring to RM?

I remember a lot of doom and gloom at the time that it would be the death of any user created mods for FM and even the sports gaming industry as a whole but doesn’t really seem to have come to pass. And as Jim notes, even though officially they’ve blocked things from the editor and nobody hosts the mod packs that have United related content in, it’s trivial to remove the blocks and mod it yourself anyway.

[Ghost Econ]

Players will get $600 and a copy of the game for as long as they're on a college roster.

Players can start opting in to EA Sports College Football 25 - ESPN

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by Ghost Econ

Players will get $600 and a copy of the game for as long as they're on a college roster.

Players can start opting in to EA Sports College Football 25 - ESPN

This is good news. Petty sure I'm in when the game releases.

[GrantDawg]

They are putting in something that prevents people from being able to recreate any player that opts out (or I guess actually doesn't opt in). They are blocking name changes to the player and are not using likeness or ratings that are comparable to the actual player.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

They are putting in something that prevents people from being able to recreate any player that opts out (or I guess actually doesn't opt in). They are blocking name changes to the player and are not using likeness or ratings that are comparable to the actual player.

I'm not surprised. I'm not going to be bothered over those that don't sign, it's fictional in 4 years anyway.

I don't see the downside for any player that signs, future NFLers and Stars included. I took it as the player was only signing for basic inclusion, anything extra (cover, commercials etc.) would be a separate deal. Sounds like a few bucks for doing nothing other than signing, then get some exposure, family and friends see you in the game, etc., but I'm sure some will still not opt in.

Just hoping for a good experience on the ps5.

[Mota]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

They are putting in something that prevents people from being able to recreate any player that opts out (or I guess actually doesn't opt in). They are blocking name changes to the player and are not using likeness or ratings that are comparable to the actual player.

And then EA rates the player at their position a 40 just for spite. The player's teammates get angry at the player opting out because now their team sucks in the game.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Mota

And then EA rates the player at their position a 40 just for spite. The player's teammates get angry at the player opting out because now their team sucks in the game.

One of the articles I saw today actually addressed that.

Basically said that missing players would be replaced by a fictional that represented the average talent over the last ten seasons at that school and the particular position.

As ways to handle it go (under the constraints dictated by the court system) I thought that really wasn't a bad idea at all.

[Kodos]

Yeah, that seemed like a good solution.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

One of the articles I saw today actually addressed that.

Basically said that missing players would be replaced by a fictional that represented the average talent over the last ten seasons at that school and the particular position.

As ways to handle it go (under the constraints dictated by the court system) I thought that really wasn't a bad idea at all.

I like it, sounds like they actually put some thought into it.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by Mota

And then EA rates the player at their position a 40 just for spite. The player's teammates get angry at the player opting out because now their team sucks in the game.

I'd thought about this and pressure from family and friends too, if they didn't sign.

You don't sign, a few players gather in the dorm to play some NCAA, you're there, and yes, you are the asshole. "Dude, what the fuck?"

[GrantDawg]

There is just no benefit for EA to negotiate with any individual player, no matter how big. Not having *insert major player here* is not likely to cost them a single sale. The only way the players have leverage is if they somehow organized and boycotted. Even then, I think EA would rather ship without them rather than overpay. The schools are already in and many players will be fine with what was 9ffered. Many players have already said they would be willing to be in the game for free.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[Mota]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

One of the articles I saw today actually addressed that.

Basically said that missing players would be replaced by a fictional that represented the average talent over the last ten seasons at that school and the particular position.

As ways to handle it go (under the constraints dictated by the court system) I thought that really wasn't a bad idea at all.

They do have to be very careful, so setting this out in advance seems to be a good way to do it.

[RainMaker]

I could maybe see them negotiating for a player of Tebow's popularity. But otherwise, some players not being in the game won't matter.

Also, the game is likely going to be built around their microtransaction system and they'll probably have a ton of legends you can play as to compensate.

[GrantDawg]

I listened to a podcast with a reporter who has been all over this game for the last year. He says that EA's expectation for the revenue of this game is to be about 30% of Madden. They don't expect Team Builder to be anywhere near the moneymaker of Madden, mainly because the game is too niche. They expect it to be more like the NHL game sales-wise.
A little surprised it is expected to be that much of a drop-off, though I knew there would be a significant difference.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[GrantDawg]

The first big name to not opt in is: Arch Manning. His reason is that he wants to "focus on playing football on the field." What?

[Ghost Econ]

Wouldn't he have to get on the field?

[bhlloy]

Butthurt about being the lowest rated Manning in history maybe

[GrantDawg]

It is a very "I don't want all the attention" while doing the thing that will get you the most attention.

[Ksyrup]

15+ years ago, this was the only game I would play on my kids' PS2. Well, occasionally I played around with the Legos games. But now... I don't have the time or interest to hole up somewhere and play for hours at a time.

My daughter, OTOH, may drop out of college so she can play this full-time...

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

15+ years ago, this was the only game I would play on my kids' PS2. Well, occasionally I played around with the Legos games. But now... I don't have the time or interest to hole up somewhere and play for hours at a time.

My daughter, OTOH, may drop out of college so she can play this full-time...

If they do it right, I'm totally down to hole up for hours with this game. Considering it is EA, the getting it right thing is not very likely.

[Ksyrup]

It could be a perfect game and I just won't be interested. Not to mention that right now, my interest in college FB is at a 35 year low.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

It is a very "I don't want all the attention" while doing the thing that will get you the most attention.

Yup.

Also, I imagine that his family told him he has to "protect the Manning name" or something like that. After all, you can't make eleventy-billion commercials for second-tier sportsbooks if the name's value gets diluted.

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Yup.

Also, I imagine that his family told him he has to "protect the Manning name" or something like that. After all, you can't make eleventy-billion commercials for second-tier sportsbooks if the name's value gets diluted.

"You went 2-5 for 30 yards last season Arch. We can't have a Manning rated as a 63."

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

The first big name to not opt in is: Arch Manning. His reason is that he wants to "focus on playing football on the field." What?

Yeah, apparently he doesn't realize that opting-in doesn't mean you actually have to play the game.

[cartman]

EA Sports. It's in the game. (except when you don't opt-in)

[Ghost Econ]

July 19th is the date.

1,264 days since it was announced as coming back... just in time for the end of college football.

[Kodos]

Hoping we’ll see some game footage during the NFL draft.