Maddens legal battle starts today 09/14/2009!

[Azamien]

Re: Maddens legal battle starts today 09/14/2009!

Well then let people post their opinions on the subject without trying to prove them wrong with every point they make. k? Now I leave the thread good day. :wink:

People are posting their opinions and I'm posting mine. Oh, wow, I think I just defined "discussion". Amazing concept, I know.

[odbman]

Re: Maddens legal battle starts today 09/14/2009!

Your working definition of monopoly is wrong.

EA blocking companies from making any video games would be an illegal monopoly. EA blocking companies from making an NFL-licensed video game is not an illegal monopoly. It's simply the result of an exclusive-rights deal granted by the holder of the trademarks in one very narrow, specific part of the larger video game industry.

Let's try some other examples.

NBC was the exclusive US broadcast partner of the 2008 Summer Olympic Games. This prevented any other network from airing those games. Illegal monopoly?

Sony holds the exclusive rights to The Da Vinci Code, meaning that no other movie studio could film a movie based on that (hugely overrated) book. Illegal monopoly?

Turbine holds the exclusive rights to produce a massively multiplayer online game based on the novel Lord of the Rings. No other company can make a game based on the novel. Illegal monopoly?

If the three above aren't illegal monopolies, in what way do they differ from the EA/NFL deal?

You are so correct.I have sent in many items on this issue and tried to explain that but to many people on this board don't understand business nor do they understand the law.It is very fustrating to see this many people are so out of touch with laws and business.People don't seem to understand that there are attorney's out there that will take a case based on risk that they may find a judge liberal enough to side against EA or any company.Or they hope EA wont want to go to court and will settle out of court for a fee.

[Rocky]

Re: Maddens legal battle starts today 09/14/2009!

I'm glad you brought this up, because I forgot a huge exclusivity example earlier. UFC. THQ owns the exclusive UFC license. So is EA sitting back and saying, "Oh, well, they snagged the only really marketable brand, so we might as well quit." Instead they're making their own brand-less MMA game. And I'll bet they sell a lot of copies.

And don't forget about the MLB license. You know, the one Take 2 snatched up solely to keep EA from being able to make an MLB game.

EA brought three of the largest (and only worthwile) licenses in the football gaming genre.....and then sought to price out legends after APF2K8 was released.

The MLB deal is only third party. Although it sucks, it's not even close to being the same thing. The UFC license is a terrible example since there are other prominent MMA leagues and athletes to choose from.

[Azamien]

Re: Maddens legal battle starts today 09/14/2009!

The UFC license is a terrible example since there are other prominent MMA leagues and athletes to choose from.

Very true, but I wasn't saying that they're equal. I'm just pointing out that there are a lot of exclusive deals out there in the world, very few of them are held by EA, and that some of them even go against EA. From reading this thread you could draw the conclusion that most people don't seem to realize it, or -- more likely -- choose to ignore it.

Things would certainly be better for football fans if the exclusives went away. But at the same time I can't bring myself to root for a plaintiff decision in this court case because it would have impact far beyond video games, and I don't think it's the court's place to decide how a company can license its own trademarks.

[capn_razzamataz]

Re: Maddens legal battle starts today 09/14/2009!

Very true, but I wasn't saying that they're equal. I'm just pointing out that there are a lot of exclusive deals out there in the world, very few of them are held by EA, and that some of them even go against EA. From reading this thread you could draw the conclusion that most people don't seem to realize it, or -- more likely -- choose to ignore it..

While true, EA doesn't hold many exclusive licenses in the grand scheme of things, they do hold many of the ones that count most.

1. FIFA
2. NFL
3. PGA
4. NCAA Football
5. NASCAR (although those games have fallen so far EA probably won't renew it next year)
6. AFL (doesn't hold much weight anymore)

Maybe even a few more that I'm forgetting. These are off the top of the head, so I apologize in advance if anything's off. Please feel free to correct me.

[Dmacho]

Re: Maddens legal battle starts today 09/14/2009!

Your working definition of monopoly is wrong.

EA blocking companies from making any video games would be an illegal monopoly. EA blocking companies from making an NFL-licensed video game is not an illegal monopoly. It's simply the result of an exclusive-rights deal granted by the holder of the trademarks in one very narrow, specific part of the larger video game industry.

Let's try some other examples.

NBC was the exclusive US broadcast partner of the 2008 Summer Olympic Games. This prevented any other network from airing those games. Illegal monopoly?

Sony holds the exclusive rights to The Da Vinci Code, meaning that no other movie studio could film a movie based on that (hugely overrated) book. Illegal monopoly?

Turbine holds the exclusive rights to produce a massively multiplayer online game based on the novel Lord of the Rings. No other company can make a game based on the novel. Illegal monopoly?

If the three above aren't illegal monopolies, in what way do they differ from the EA/NFL deal?

It's not that EA has the exclusive rights to the NFL ; it's that the NFL has exlcusive rights to both the NFL and NCAA. When the AFL was still around, they owned those rights also. EA sports has snatched up the exclusive rights of every major american football organization. You're right, there's nothing abnormal or illegal about EA having the exclusive rights to the NFL, but the issue is that EA has blocked and will continue to block every other developer from using the likeness of players, coaches and trademarks of any major american football organization. Unless a judge decides to stop them, because that may be illegal.

[spixxx8]

Re: Maddens legal battle starts today 09/14/2009!

Honestly I just want a choice. That's all. I think as gamers we all at least want that. So if 2k is better or not at least we can figure that out for ourselves. Just saying.

[Azamien]

Re: Maddens legal battle starts today 09/14/2009!

Honestly I just want a choice. That's all. I think as gamers we all at least want that. So if 2k is better or not at least we can figure that out for ourselves. Just saying.

I agree with that. I was extremely disappointed when I heard the NFL had extended the exclusive contract.

I just don't think it's the court's place to tell a company how it can license its own trademarks.

[jWILL253]

Re: Maddens legal battle starts today 09/14/2009!

Today may mark the beginning of what may turn out to be a day of celebration for us sports fans who want competition back in the football arena! http://kotaku.com/5343720/madden-sui...gang+tackle-ea

EPIC fail...

[rm217]

Re: Maddens legal battle starts today 09/14/2009!

I simply want a choice!

[CYST2000]

Re: Maddens legal battle starts today 09/14/2009!

It's the NFL's fault. Going after EA is like blaming Reebok for having the NFL's exclusive game apparel license. It was the NFL who held the rights over these companies heads and sold to the highest bidder. If you go after anyone you go after the NFL. You don't go after hp or Compaq if you want something different than Windows, that falls squarely on Windows who actually has a monopoly. But at the end of the day it is the NFL's rights and not anyone Else's. I wish we could have multiple games but that wont be happening anytime soon.

[pimpmonsta]

Re: Maddens legal battle starts today 09/14/2009!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G8b2FRQ1KM

heres a link to the updated version of tecmo bowl video on Youtube. Can someone posted on here, i do know how. If u truly need a nfl football game to play besides madden play this

[Nintari]

Re: Maddens legal battle starts today 09/14/2009!

It's the NFL's fault. Going after EA is like blaming Reebok for having the NFL's exclusive game apparel license. It was the NFL who held the rights over these companies heads and sold to the highest bidder. If you go after anyone you go after the NFL. You don't go after hp or Compaq if you want something different than Windows, that falls squarely on Windows who actually has a monopoly. But at the end of the day it is the NFL's rights and not anyone Else's. I wish we could have multiple games but that wont be happening anytime soon.

Actually...EA had unsuccessfully lobbied for an exclusive deal many times prior to the NFL agreeing to one. Don't go out on a limb there and assume the NFL did this on their own. EA wanted it and the NFL decided to allow it to happen as long as EA showed them the money...which they did.

So the question is, baring a court room reversal in monopoly laws, how long will EA continue to pay for it? They're making LESS money with it then they did without it. If having the license means less profit, why pay to own it? If I were a shareholder, this would be the first thing I would bring up.

Hopefully sales continue their annual nose dive so EA makes that move because no matter what they say, no one wants to continually lose money.

[stux]

Re: Maddens legal battle starts today 09/14/2009!

I agree with ADEM this is one MAJOR thing with this country. You can sue someone over NOTHING at all.

They need to make it that if you sue someone and lose you have to pay ALL court costs and attorney fees and reasonable expenses for the person you sue. You would see a lot less of these BS law suites if that was the case.

The NFL owns the license it is up to them what they do with it.

Would people be crying if McDonalds had a video game and only let one company use thier license?

I don't think so and it is the same damn thing. If any company wants to make a football game there is nothing stopping them. They just can't use names: players, teams, and NFL which are all licensed and owned by someone

[CYST2000]

Re: Maddens legal battle starts today 09/14/2009!

Actually...EA had unsuccessfully lobbied for an exclusive deal many times prior to the NFL agreeing to one. Don't go out on a limb there and assume the NFL did this on their own. EA wanted it and the NFL decided to allow it to happen as long as EA showed them the money...which they did.

So the question is, baring a court room reversal in monopoly laws, how long will EA continue to pay for it? They're making LESS money with it then they did without it. If having the license means less profit, why pay to own it? If I were a shareholder, this would be the first thing I would bring up.

Hopefully sales continue their annual nose dive so EA makes that move because no matter what they say, no one wants to continually lose money.

I don't know were you got your info, but the NFL is the one who made it he issue. As for EA they had the namesake(Madden),and the funds to pull the deal done from the NFL. Nobody twisted the NFL's arm, and besides it's what the NFL has been doing for the last 6-7 yrs now. They have been making exclusive deals on everything, just look at the Directv Sunday ticket deal, or the Pepsi deal the made. Exclusive deals are a pain (I know), but the point I make is if you go after someone or write a million angry letters, write to the root of the problem.

P.S. I wish to see the day 2k returns. I have played the 2k games since 1999, when it was on the Dreamcast. I want so desperately to hear Dan Stevens & Peter o'Keefe once more(the kings of commentary).