Maddens legal battle starts today 09/14/2009!

[budsticky]

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

And that's the argument. The plaintiff is saying that since games like APF2k8 doesn't have the NFL license, the game won't sell. You can pull up thousands of threads on this board where people say, I only play madden because it's the only NFL game on the market, or I'm not going to buy APF2k8 or Backbreaker because it don't have the NFL license. You can't deny that.

And I meant to say the lawsuit is about EA having a monopoly on license football video games.

Again, moot point. First off, thousands of threads on this board won't hold up in court. Second of all, it's not really EA's fault that the market hasn't responded to a competitors football game. If somebody comes up with something innovative enough people will buy it. Supposedly this Backbreaker game is out there waiting in the wings to steal Madden's thunder. Whether or not that is true about Backbreaker is irrelevant because the fact is companies are able to make football games and despite EA's competitive advantage they are in no way restricting innovation or new creations in the market place. Didn't I tell myself I needed to stop reading this thread? Oh well, work is boring right now.

[SoxFan01605]

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

How so?

exclusive control of a particular market? Check.

The exclusivity is with the NFL, not with video games, or even football. Within the context of the argument, that's not the "market."

Power to control prices? Check. EA doesn't dictate the prices...not in football, or any other sport. They are dictated and 100% in-line with the MARKET price set by the video game industry.

Power to exclude competition? Check.

Again, the license acquisition hasn't excluded competition in the football video game market. Since the license was acquired we've seen 2-3 "Blitz" games, APF 2K8, and currently Backbreaker is in development. All are football video games, and all would be considered competition within that market.

Developed willfully rather than as the result of superior products or skill? Double-check.

This is the only place where you could even make a reasonable argument. The problem is, it would never hold up to any legal scrutiny in court. There is not enough factual evidence to support it. It's all based on individual preference.

As we all know there are people that don't think 2K made games close to as good as EA's Madden (I would agree that's crazy...lol). It would take very little for EA to disprove this notion.

Besides, it doesn't really matter what I think. It was enough for the Judge in the Pecover case to deny EA's motion to dismiss, and frankly, for now, that's good enough for me.

Answers in bold.

I don't like the deal any better than anyone else here (I STILL play 2K5 and wish they had a shot at making a next-gen football game as much as anyone). I just don't see how it holds up...same as any other attempt to bring about such action.

I agree that it was enough to get it beyond dismissal, but as a lawyer, you should know that doesn't equal a good case. It only means there wasn't enough (in that particular judges mind) to keep it from being further reviewed.

I would also agree that it's certainly possible for this to gain more ground than it actually merits. I honestly don't see it doing anything but tying EA up in legal fees for awhile. Maybe that's the real goal...who knows.

I do think that, if by some stretch they DO win, adem was 100% right in his first post. It could potentially set a dangerous precident that extends far beyond this petty Madden/NFL issue.

We'll see how it plays out though.

[budsticky]

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

NHL2k10 is releasing at $49.99. Who is offering a competing NFL game for less than $60?

So because one hockey game is releasing at a 10 dollar lower price point than is standard in the video game world we need to break all binding agreements and restructure the business environment in the video game market?

[Tbo24]

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

There is a little thing called antitrust, covered by the Sherman Act. It's the same deal that got Microsoft in the Internet Explorer vs. Netscape ordeal. The same deal that forced Google to abandon an advertising arrangement with Yahoo. The same deal that SHOULD have prohibited the NFL from licensing exclusively to a SINGLE COMPANY.

[Tbo24]

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

Answers in bold.

I don't like the deal any better than anyone else here (I STILL play 2K5 and wish they had a shot at making a next-gen football game as much as anyone). I just don't see how it holds up...same as any other attempt to bring about such action.

I agree that it was enough to get it beyond dismissal, but as a lawyer, you should know that doesn't equal a good case. It only means there wasn't enough (in that particular judges mind) to keep it from being further reviewed.

I would also agree that it's certainly possible for this to gain more ground than it actually merits. I honestly don't see it doing anything but tying EA up in legal fees for awhile. Maybe that's the real goal...who knows.

I do think that, if by some stretch they DO win, adem was 100% right in his first post. It sets a dangerous precident that extends far beyond this petty Madden/NFL issue.

I think people fail to understand that NO ONE wants to play a football game with legends and fake teams..yes they can make football games but they will not sell. The lawsuit is over the NFL exclusive license not whether or not you can make football games in general.

[Dmacho]

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

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.

Call of Duty, Battlefield and other FPS games are different. They don't rely on the likeness of anybody for marketability. Sports games are an entirely different story. There's virtually no market for unlicensed sports games. Licensed games will always sell more than unlicensed games, that's the reality that the FPS genre doesn't have to deal with. In your example, you have Bungie buying all the rights to COD and Battlefied ; there's nothing stop another developer from making another FPS that's superior. If that FPS is superior to COD and/or Battlefield, people will eventually make the switch.

In football, it doesn't matter if a another developer is capable of making a game that is superior ; I should say there's nothing from making a game that plays better, because even though the game play might be superior, in a lot of casual fans' eyes an unlicensed game lacking NFL teams and players is inferior.

If another devepoler wants to make an american football simulation, which would require the license to use the likness of players, coaches and teams, they can't.

You're looking at this genre as the american football video game genre ; it's really the licensed american football video game genre. EA at the point in time is the only company allowed to make a licensed american football game. When the AFL was still in existence, other developers couldn't make an AFL game. No other developer can make an NCAA or NFL video game.
Nobody but EA is allowed to make a licensed american football game. If you the consumer want to buy a licensed american football game, you have to buy it from EA.

By definition, that is a monopoly.

[JT30]

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

So because one hockey game is releasing at a 10 dollar lower price point than is standard in the video game world we need to break all binding agreements and restructure the business environment in the video game market?

Deadweight loss. Consumers are buying Madden knowing the cost is more than the benefit.

[SoxFan01605]

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

I think people fail to understand that NO ONE wants to play a football game with legends and fake teams..yes they can make football games but they will not sell. The lawsuit is over the NFL exclusive license not whether or not you can make football games in general.

It's understood. You are arguing subjectives (whether or not anyone will play with legends) that will never hold up in court. I could argue that APF didn't sell because, despite excellent core play, it was barebones and had no features to extend replay value. These arguments have no bearing in a court of law...they're nothing but anecdotal evidence.

What if the NFL decided to grant NOBODY it's license? Do you lose rights to your own IP simply because it becomes the most popular in the industry?

The point is I've yet to see a strong LEGAL argument that supports the claim that what EA is doing is a true monopoly. I think the debate centers on what the courts would legally define as the "market." There is nothing to suggest that the NFL is the market in this case. That's why you see people referring to the football and video game markets respectively.

[SmashMan]

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

The lawsuit is over the NFL exclusive license not whether or not you can make football games in general.

True, but the cries of "monopoly!" hinge entirely on the difference between the two. If other companies can make football video games, it's not a monopoly.

I really think adembroski covered this in the first reply.

[Tbo24]

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

Call of Duty, Battlefield and other FPS games are different. They don't rely on the likeness of anybody for marketability. Sports games are an entirely different story. There's virtually no market for unlicensed sports games. Licensed games will always sell more than unlicensed games, that's the reality that the FPS genre doesn't have to deal with. In your example, you have Bungie buying all the rights to COD and Battlefied ; there's nothing stop another developer from making another FPS that's superior. If that FPS is superior to COD and/or Battlefield, people will eventually make the switch.

In football, it doesn't matter if a another developer is capable of making a game that is superior ; I should say there's nothing from making a game that plays better, because even though the game play might be superior, in a lot of casual fans' eyes an unlicensed game lacking NFL teams and players is inferior.

If another devepoler wants to make an american football simulation, which would require the license to use the likness of players, coaches and teams, they can't.

You're looking at this genre as the american football video game genre ; it's really the licensed american football video game genre. EA at the point in time is the only company allowed to make a licensed american football game. When the AFL was still in existence, other developers couldn't make an AFL game. No other developer can make an NCAA or NFL video game.
Nobody but EA is allowed to make a licensed american football game. If you the consumer want to buy a licensed american football game, you have to buy it from EA.

By definition, that is a monopoly.

Very well said..for everyone thinking they know what a monopoly is read this.

[bkfount]

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

sigh, not this **** again..

[steveo]

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

Yay, another idiotic lawsuit in today's society. Shocking. My view of this is the same as the first reply.

You know what they need to allow happen? If you bring forth a stupid lawsuit you should be executed. That may sound harsh to some (those who actually put some extra weird value into human life) but I guarantee it'd make people think twice over doing it. As it is now there is nothing to truly deter people from bringing forth any lawsuit they can think up.

Why is it we live in a society where there is really no punishment for being an idiot and wasting the time of others? Sheesh....

[Josherz18]

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

Actually its American needle vs. The NFL now. The high court originally was hesitant to hear the case and the NFL said they WANT it reviewed. Could be the end of player Unions as we know it ,which of course would affect video games.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/colum...ter&id=4336261

I think you're all missing the point, I love Madden and most sports games. This will change all sports as we know them, it will be bad for everyone. Not just for Madden fans

[dizturbd]

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

In economics, a monopoly exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.

And here's the kicker...

A monopoly is said to be coercive when the monopoly firm actively prohibits competitors from entering the field.

WHO needs to study? EA definitely created a monopoly by not allowing anybody else to create an NFL videogame or even an NCAA videogame. This wouldn't be an issue, but the CFL and other leagues are not profitable. Therefore, EA has sufficient control over a PARTICULAR product.

And why do you care what is jamming up our court systems? It's not like this is a criminal case keeping justice from being served to rapists and murderers.

[budsticky]

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

There is a little thing called antitrust, covered by the Sherman Act. It's the same deal that got Microsoft in the Internet Explorer vs. Netscape ordeal. The same deal that forced Google to abandon an advertising arrangement with Yahoo. The same deal that SHOULD have prohibited the NFL from licensing exclusively to a SINGLE COMPANY.

Quite a different scenario. Microsoft ran into trouble because they controlled the Windows OS and were able to bundle IE with all the computers having Windows(in other words most of them out there). This made competing browsers such as Netscape hard to get. You have to remember that when this case hit you couldn't just download things almost instantly, most people were still on dial up. You went with what you had on your computer for the most part.

One of the main problems in the Google/Yahoo thing is that they would become allies rather than competitors. EA and NFL don't have that type of relationship. It would be akin to Sony and Microsoft teaming up to make one video game console and phasing out Xbox and PS3 and deciding their new console was going to cost $800 and only software that the new venture produced in-house would be sold. That's a monopoly.

The fact remains that companies are still free to make football games. Once again, I'll say, EA has a competitive advantage in the FOOTBALL video game market. They do not have a monopoly.