Maddens legal battle starts today 09/14/2009!

[GTheorenHobbes]

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

mo⋅nop⋅o⋅ly
  /məˈnɒpəli/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [muh-nop-uh-lee] Show IPA

–noun, plural -lies.
1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.
2. an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government.
3. the exclusive possession or control of something.
4. something that is the subject of such control, as a commodity or service.
5. a company or group that has such control.
6. the market condition that exists when there is only one seller.
7. (initial capital letter) a board game in which a player attempts to gain a monopoly of real estate by advancing around the board and purchasing property, acquiring capital by collecting rent from other players whose pieces land on that property.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/monopoly

[spankdatazz22]

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

Personally, I own a 360. I don't feel it's a legitimate choice to spend $300 or $400 for one game, no matter how good it is. So, therefore, I am limited by my options and opportunities for a good baseball game.

The only thing I see different is that I have a personal choice to not purchase a PS3.

Again, that's your choice. It comes down to what's most important to the individual. I own a 360 and a PS3 and barely touch the PS3 - but it was worth getting while it was on sale ($316 at the time) and for blu-ray. It was worth it to me. I'm not going to sit back and complain that I can't play God of War or play blu-rays on the 360.

With the football games you don't have a choice - it's either play [Madden/NCAA] or don't play. If 2K had full exclusivity and there was no The Show, I'm sure 2K would be getting the full brunt of baseball gamers frustrations, as Madden/NCAA should be getting the full brunt of football gamers frustrations. If baseball is that important to you and you feel MLB2K is that bad, you'd likely choose to purchase a PS3. If 989 were making a great football game and it was only available on the PS3, I'm sure you'd see a lot more people purchasing a PS3 and playing a great football game than complaining that they shouldn't have to purchase a PS3 and pouting on their 360.

Either way, the key is choice imo. If there was only the 360 to choose from, I'm sure you'd see a lot more people speaking out on the hardware failures if they were dissatisfied with Microsoft's support. As it is, as a consumer you have the choice to either put up with it or take their business elsewhere and buy a PS3 or Wii. If you don't like Windows, you can buy a Mac. If you don't like McDonalds you can go to Burger King. If you don't like NBA2K, you can buy Live or 989's basketball game. If you don't like MLB2K, you can get The Show. If you don't like Madden/NCAA, you don't have a choice to move on to something else.

EDIT: just wanted to add that I'm not arguing against the NFL's right to do what it wants with it's IP. Just was explaining my opinion on why there's the level of frustration w/the baseball games versus the football games

[Dmacho]

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

2k at least seem to be paranoid that EA could sue them if they did that.

Nah, they just don't think there's a market for an unlicensed football game. Everybody isn't a hardcore football video game junkie like a lot of people on this board. The casual fan is a lot less likely to take an unlicensed football game seriously.

[budsticky]

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

There may be a slight chance of a case. If EA was just in bed with the NFL, it'd be one thing; however, they have the exclusive rights to NCAA trademarks as well as the NFL. At one time the had the exclusive rights to the AFL. They have or have had exlcusive deals with every major american football league. That's were the issue might be. If other companies could make NCAA football games, if other companies could've made Arena league football games when the league was still up and running, it'd be different. EA is clearly trying to prevent any other company from making a licensed football game.

The courts may say that as a monopoly.

Again, this doesn't really hold up. They are not preventing any other company from making a football game, they are just preventing them from making a football game with those licenses.

What if Bungie bought the rights to the Call of Duty franchise and the Battlefield franchise and started making those games but replacing the characters with futuristic guys in hyper-powered space jump suits and called them Call of Duty: Halo Edition and Battlefield Halo? Could other companies then come back and sue because they have a monopoly on FPS games? I know that example seems wacky, but the point is you can't have a monopoly on something if other companies are still allowed to make that product or service. The issue here is with branding and competitive advantage. In this case Bungie would have a competitive advantage but not a monopoly on FPS. EA has a competitive advantage in football video games, not a monopoly.

Another issue, and thanks to the guy that posted the actual definition of monopoly, is the fact that EA is in no way controlling the costs of the market. EA Madden Football is not the reason we are paying 59.99 for a new game. Some may argue that 2k charged 19.99 for 2k5 and thus EA is causing football games to go at 59.99 (although 49.99 was the standard price at that time). The fact remains that there is a standard price for video games and that is 59.99, or 49.99 when the 2k thing happened. If EA was solely responsible for setting the prices of the video game market and this could be attributed to their acquisition of the NFL license than yeah, there would be a precedent; but anybody that thinks this is the case is delusional.

People, please do some research into actual real life monopoly cases and you will see the naivety of this whole argument.

[Bump101]

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

This is getting beyond stupid. I can't believe the idiocy of some people. Learn a thing or two about economy before you start tossing words like "monopoly" around, and stop bringing stupid lawsuits that are costing perfectly good people jobs.

And for the record, this is hardly the "start", people have tried this Lord knows how many times.

Exclusive access to a privately owned intellectual property is NOT a monopoly, as the owner of the I.P. may do with its private property whatever it damn well pleases. Beyond that, the industry in question is not "NFL Based Football Games", it's Video Games.

If some psychotic judge actually ruled in this lawsuits favor, the net effect would be that anything you come up with... a script, a song, a book, anything that can, under current law, be considered your intellectual property (or trademark) would no longer be yours. Anybody would be free to come along and jack your idea.

Allow me to spell it out a bit further; The National Football League (TM) owns trademarks and IPs for 32 NFL football teams. As such, they have the legal and ethical right to allow or disallow the usage of said properties at their discretion. To say that EA has a monopoly on NFL Football games is the same thing as saying Blizzard has a monopoly on Starcraft video games. Thus, a judge rules in their favor, you've got 17 different gaming companies putting out their own version of Starcraft... a property owned by Blizzard and thus rightfully theirs to profit from... just as the NFL license belongs to the NFL to profit from, and they chose to profit off of EA.

There is no illegality here. You don't have to like the way it works, but it is the way it works, and it's the right way.

The lawsuit isn't about EA having a monopoly on NFL football video games, it's EA having a monopoly on football video games in general. As in NFL, NCAA, AFL, etc..

And to say that the plaintiff won't win this case is crazy. We all know anything can happen in the court of law.

[budsticky]

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

Nah, they just don't think there's a market for an unlicensed football game. Everybody isn't a hardcore football video game junkie like a lot of people on this board. The casual fan is a lot less likely to take an unlicensed football game seriously.

Exactly. And the dismal sales of APF2k8 prove that. Despite it being, in the eyes of many, far superior in football gameplay to anything Madden has done since then it still failed miserably. I would love for 2k to release an unlicensed game and open it up to customization on the user end, but I'm not holding my breath on that. The goal in business is still to make money and you can't base demand for something on the hardcore folks that reside in these forums. We're by far the minority.

[bigsmallwood]

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

I just want everybody to have the chance to make an NFL game again. It was much more fun, and also gave people a CHOICE

Customers like not being forced to purchase only "one", give us options.

[GTheorenHobbes]

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

The lawsuit isn't about EA having a monopoly on NFL football video games, it's EA having a monopoly on football video games in general. As in NFL, NCAA, AFL, etc..

And to say that the plaintiff won't win this case is crazy. We all know anything can happen in the court of law.

Again...exactly. And don't forget, the case has already survived a motion to dismiss (i.e., the "failure to state a claim" hurdle). I'd bet EA has already spent well over a million dollars in legal expenses just in getting the case to this stage of the litigation. Anybody who says this lawsuit is "frivolous" really doesn't know what they're talking about, IMHO.

[budsticky]

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

The lawsuit isn't about EA having a monopoly on NFL football video games, it's EA having a monopoly on football video games in general. As in NFL, NCAA, AFL, etc..

And to say that the plaintiff won't win this case is crazy. We all know anything can happen in the court of law.

But they don't have a monopoly on football games. If they did there would have never been an APF2k8, or Blitz: The League, or a game like Backbreaker in development. They have a competitive advantage. They don't have a monopoly. I have to extract myself from this thread before I lose it. LOL.

[budsticky]

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

Again...exactly. And don't forget, the case has already survived a motion to dismiss (i.e., the "failure to state a claim" hurdle). I'd bet EA has already spent well over a million dollars in legal expenses just in getting the case to this stage of the litigation. Anybody who says this lawsuit is "frivolous" really doesn't know what they're talking about, IMHO.

Don't you see the irony? A lawsuit costing EA millions of dollars that is claiming that EA is controlling the price of games? What's really effecting the price of games here? EA's license with the NFL or EA needing to spend too much money defending themselves from ridiculous law suits?

[adembroski]

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

mo⋅nop⋅o⋅ly
  /məˈnɒpəli/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [muh-nop-uh-lee] Show IPA

–noun, plural -lies.
1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.
2. an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government.
3. the exclusive possession or control of something.
4. something that is the subject of such control, as a commodity or service.
5. a company or group that has such control.
6. the market condition that exists when there is only one seller.
7. (initial capital letter) a board game in which a player attempts to gain a monopoly of real estate by advancing around the board and purchasing property, acquiring capital by collecting rent from other players whose pieces land on that property.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/monopoly

Try looking up the LEGAL definition, not the one that's used in every day speech, eh? There's a bit of a difference.

[Radioactiveman]

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

Regardless with sales of Madden dropping I wouldn't be surprised if when there exclusive license is up EA doesn't renew. It just will not make economic sense. They can still sell the same amount of copies even with competition. Good economic sense could prevail on EA's part in 2012. Imagine how much better Madden would be if all that exclusive license money all 500 million or so, went into making a new Madden engine. Only time will tell if Madden and EA will come to there senses and realize they overestimated how many more copies of Madden they could sell with no competition.

It would be intersting to know how the exclusive deal impacted their total sales. The joke may have ultimately been on EA if they didn't get their 500 million $ back in increased sales.

[Bump101]

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

Regardless with sales of Madden dropping I wouldn't be surprised if when there exclusive license is up EA doesn't renew. It just will not make economic sense. They can still sell the same amount of copies even with competition. Good economic sense could prevail on EA's part in 2012. Imagine how much better Madden would be if all that exclusive license money all 500 million or so, went into making a new Madden engine. Only time will tell if Madden and EA will come to there senses and realize they overestimated how many more copies of Madden they could sell with no competition.

I don't know about that. I know a lot of people who is fed up with madden and most of them don't even purchase the game anymore. And the ones that do buy, only buy it because it's the only NFL football available, and they usually get the game off of ebay or craigslist when someone is selling a used copy for cheap.

[roadman]

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

Again, that's your choice. It comes down to what's most important to the individual. I own a 360 and a PS3 and barely touch the PS3 - but it was worth getting while it was on sale ($316 at the time) and for blu-ray. It was worth it to me. I'm not going to sit back and complain that I can't play God of War or play blu-rays on the 360.

With the football games you don't have a choice - it's either play [Madden/NCAA] or don't play. If 2K had full exclusivity and there was no The Show, I'm sure 2K would be getting the full brunt of baseball gamers frustrations, as Madden/NCAA should be getting the full brunt of football gamers frustrations. If baseball is that important to you and you feel MLB2K is that bad, you'd likely choose to purchase a PS3. If 989 were making a great football game and it was only available on the PS3, I'm sure you'd see a lot more people purchasing a PS3 and playing a great football game than complaining that they shouldn't have to purchase a PS3 and pouting on their 360.

Either way, the key is choice imo. If there was only the 360 to choose from, I'm sure you'd see a lot more people speaking out on the hardware failures if they were dissatisfied with Microsoft's support. As it is, as a consumer you have the choice to either put up with it or take their business elsewhere and buy a PS3 or Wii. If you don't like Windows, you can buy a Mac. If you don't like McDonalds you can go to Burger King. If you don't like NBA2K, you can buy Live or 989's basketball game. If you don't like MLB2K, you can get The Show. If you don't like Madden/NCAA, you don't have a choice to move on to something else.

EDIT: just wanted to add that I'm not arguing against the NFL's right to do what it wants with it's IP. Just was explaining my opinion on why there's the level of frustration w/the baseball games versus the football games

I get your point, but I think you are forgetting other areas of restrictive choices that would derail the thread if I went into it.

Your point is well taken and well explained, but EA and the NFL aren't the only entities in the US with restrictive choices.(which is frustrating for me as well)

And for me, personally, yeah it's a pain that The Show isn't on the 360. It's not enough of a pain to shell out money for one game, though. Yes, it's a personal choice for me, but it's also very frustrating to be somewhat restricted for baseball as well.(agree less restrictive than football, but none the less, still frustrating)

[GTheorenHobbes]

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

Try looking up the LEGAL definition, not the one that's used in every day speech, eh? There's a bit of a difference.

Ask and you shall receive...not much difference, my friend. From Law.com:

"monopoly
n. a business or inter-related group of businesses which controls so much of the production or sale of a product or kind of product as to control the market, including prices and distribution. Business practices, combinations and/or acquisitions which tend to create a monopoly may violate various federal statutes which regulate or prohibit business trusts and monopolies or prohibit restraint of trade. However, limited monopolies granted by a manufacturer to a wholesaler in a particular area are usually legal, since they are like "licenses." Public utilities such as electric, gas and water companies may also hold a monopoly in a particular geographic area since it is the only practical way to provide the public service, and they are regulated by state public utility commissions."

http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1275