Maddens legal battle starts today 09/14/2009!

[roadman]

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

So why have the deal? I have no idea. For some reason, they think it's in their best interest. To me, that's *** backwards and counter productive to good business. If I were a shareholder I know this much......I'd be REALLY pissed off.

Actually, it's not just Madden under EA's umbrella. There is The Sims, Rock Band and all other non-sports games that do perform well.

If EA is making $, stockholders are pleased. If they aren't, then, like you said, they aren't happy.

[PhillyJim76]

i wrote a paper for a grad school marketing class on this very situation, when 2K priced their games at 19.99.

i can tell you emphatically that this exclusive license is a horrible thing for anyone who plays football video games.

the best hope is that the NFL and EA walk away from this when the agreement expires.

[Nintari]

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

Actually, it's not just Madden under EA's umbrella. There is The Sims, Rock Band and all other non-sports games that do perform well.

If EA is making $, stockholders are pleased. If they aren't, then, like you said, they aren't happy.

I'm just saying that as a shareholder you want to have confidence that the company for which you've invested capital in is doing their best to maximize profits, not shrink them.

[roadman]

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

I'm just saying that as a shareholder you want to have confidence that the company for which you've invested capital in is doing their best to maximize profits, not shrink them.

Agree with that thought.

The stockholders who currently own the stock must be pleased or waiting for brighter days ahead or they would have already sold the stock.

[PhillyJim76]

also, i bet the profit on the DLC is through the roof. the costs were probably captured along with the regular game production costs and then stripped out and sold seperately.

[odbman]

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

JUDGE THROWS OUT FIRST CASE OF USING JIM BROWN'S LIKENESS.Here you go guys one case done the rest to follow.EA WINS.

[GTheorenHobbes]

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

JUDGE THROWS OUT FIRST CASE OF USING JIM BROWN'S LIKENESS.Here you go guys one case done the rest to follow.EA WINS.

I have to wonder why a guy would find so much pleasure in an EA legal victory.

Here's a link to the decision...which doesn't sound like it will impact any of the other many cases EA is defending.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/sp...0colleges.html

This judge's decision puzzles me, though. She seems to say that any videogame maker could make a game using fake players (that are clearly based off real athletes) without running into trouble. EA seems to have lucked out by drawing a female judge in that case.

[DorneyDave]

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

I used to not care so much that EA had the exclusive license, but after playing 2k8 earlier today...and then Madden 10.


Man, what seriously could have been.

[RaiderKtulu]

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

I have to wonder why a guy would find so much pleasure in an EA legal victory.

Here's a link to the decision...which doesn't sound like it will impact any of the other many cases EA is defending.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/sp...0colleges.html

This judge's decision puzzles me, though. She seems to say that any videogame maker could make a game using fake players (that are clearly based off real athletes) without running into trouble. EA seems to have lucked out by drawing a female judge in that case.

Isn't that actually a good thing for those who want a football game that isn't Madden?

I can't read the article because I'm not going to register, but I can't see why that would be a bad thing.

[GTheorenHobbes]

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

Isn't that actually a good thing for those who want a football game that isn't Madden?

That's what I thought when I read the article. If other judges followed this one, EA could be winning the battle while losing the war. I don't know if any other videogame maker would develop a football game that used players such as "John Smellway," "Terry Gradshaw," "Barry Smanders," etc., but this Judge seems to think it would be okay, even if those "fictitious" players used the exact same likeness, attributes, etc., as the real players. Crazy.

[RaiderKtulu]

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

That's what I thought when I read the article. If other judges followed this one, EA could be winning the battle while losing the war. I don't know if any other videogame maker would develop a football game that used players such as "John Smellway," "Terry Gradshaw," "Barry Smanders," etc., but this Judge seems to think it would be okay, even if those "fictitious" players used the exact same likeness, attributes, etc., as the real players. Crazy.

Parody has been a protected thing for a while, hasn't it?

Is a football game with John Smellway really much different than a movie with Dark Helmet and "May the Schwartz Be With You"?

I don't think we're talking about using any actual faces or true likeness in the game. The Blitz game essentially did that with a few players in their game, complete with a certain #7 wearing QB even being in jail for the 2nd version.

[bkfount]

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

This judge's decision puzzles me, though. She seems to say that any videogame maker could make a game using fake players (that are clearly based off real athletes) without running into trouble. EA seems to have lucked out by drawing a female judge in that case.

lol, yes, it's the fault of a female judge. Jesus, do you people even read what you type.

Using an artistic likeness of famous people has really been acceptable in other media. South Park often uses celebrity licenses and names in shows, and they even made a puppet movie using the likenesses of kim jong il and notable hollywood celebrities.

Jim Brown isn't even mentioned by name in this game, so it's not like most people will assume he's endorsing it. People can also visually distinguish between fully licensed and accurate versions of players like Jerry Rice or Dan Marino in 2k's APF2k8 and perhaps the same unlicensed players EA put in Madden.

[GTheorenHobbes]

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

Using an artistic likeness of famous people has really been acceptable in other media. South Park often uses celebrity licenses and names in shows, and they even made a puppet movie using the likenesses of kim jong il and notable hollywood celebrities.

I don't like continuing to take this thread away from its original topic, which is the monopoly lawsuit against EA (which raises the question, how many "EA Lawsuit" threads should we have?), but it's nowhere near as simple as you seem to think. This article gives a pretty good explanation of the "Right of Publicity" situation, in general:

"So say, for example, that Ansel Adams photographed Paul McCartney. Neither artist would be able to sell the photo without getting a license from the other. And even if Adams got a license from McCartney to sell the picture to a collector, that collector could not sell the photo without getting his own license from McCartney."

http://trustsandestates.com/fiduciary/famous_die_who_profits_0619/

[alliance4g63]

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

Just my opinion, but EA HAD to overpay when they did. They saw their market share slip from a 10-1 sales advantage (Madden 03 vs. 2k3), to 5-1 (Madden 04 to 2k4), to roughly 2-1 (Madden 05 vs. 2k5), and that last year included being outsold by 2k on the XBox. If EA hadn't overpaid for the exclusive license to kill off the competition, we might not even be talking about Madden today as it could've become the next Gameday. Frankly, in my opinion, we'd have been better off if they had killed their own series, took a year off to create an entirely new, innovative and exciting gameplay engine to compete with what would've been 2k8.

After all the back and forth debate I have done on this subject, I am amazed that I never thought of this. Great words man. If Ea had done this, I couldn't imagine what football gaming would be like. They have deep enough pockets, so I think they would have came back pretty strong. Damn.. Makes me want to shed a tear...haha

[SmashMan]

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

I have to wonder why a guy would find so much pleasure in an EA legal victory.

Maybe he doesn't see everything as an EA vs. 2K thing?

This judge's decision puzzles me, though. She seems to say that any videogame maker could make a game using fake players (that are clearly based off real athletes) without running into trouble. EA seems to have lucked out by drawing a female judge in that case.

LOL at blaming it on a female judge. Come on, man. So every male judge would've ruled against EA?