Maddens legal battle starts today 09/14/2009!

[Methlab]

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

In my opinion this exclusive deal has allowed EA to put out a terrible product and raise prices. They are now trying to charge for bonus cards and the ability to play a game I already payed 60 bucks on to have to fork over another $5 to play on All Madden online.

Really EA pay $1 to boost my players defensive awareness for one game LOL really EA this exclusive deal is the only reason they would try some crap like that.

I'm hoping karma wins this for us cause we don't have much of a case.

I have to agree with some of this. I don't think Madden is a terrible game, but I agree all these extra charged add ons would never work if there was competition.

The only time paying for content seems good is when it's a map pack that keeps a game like Call of Duty fresh for a longer time. Its like you bought an expansion pack and I can deal with that.

[bkfount]

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

The only Opinion that matters is the judge and he doesn't think like you and he knows the law, so who's wrong, you or the judge?

lol, it's obvious that people with opposite views are going to get talked down by EA haters in this thread, yet I get baited in every time. While it's true we know virtually nothing about how this judge thinks, it's an easy way to justify entirely ignoring any post you don't want to consider.

But keep your hopes high and continue to believe what you want. I'd love to have another era of competition in NFL gaming, but it's done right now, by the NFL's choice. People only care about this suit because of the exclusive license, yet nothing I've read even indicates this class action suit would have the teeth to void it.

[GTheorenHobbes]

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

People only care about this suit because of the exclusive license, yet nothing I've read even indicates this class action suit would have the teeth to void it.

According to the complaint, plaintiffs seek, among other relief, "restitution and/or disgorgement of all unlawful or illegal profits received by EA as a result of the anticompetitive conduct alleged," "a declaration that the relevant agreements are null and void," and "other appropriate injunctive relief."

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal...2820/204133/1/

So yes, if plaintiffs win on the necessary counts, the exclusive is history.

[Steelerlad777]

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

I'm fine with Madden having exclusive rights as long as they put out a damn good football game. Though there's a lot of improvement, the standard for a football game is still NFL 2k5. The fact that it's been 4 years, and an entirely new generation of gaming systems and new technology, and 2k5 still is the best is the reason people are so upset. Madden is still at least one year away from resetting that bar, but it shows a lot of promise.

[kingkilla56]

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

EA's logic of over paying for the exclusive deal while losing money thus far will all be justified when the NFL CBA has their lockout in 2011 i think? as no real football will be played.
Consumers will line up and buy Madden to fill their desires and college football will get more attention.
EA is banking on this and its not too far fetched. Maybe 2K can get on that UFL exclusivity lol (I definitely would buy that).
Oh and this case is laughable. These are like the 200th guys who took the pipe dream too far

[Dmacho]

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

I'm fine with Madden having exclusive rights as long as they put out a damn good football game. Though there's a lot of improvement, the standard for a football game is still NFL 2k5. The fact that it's been 4 years, and an entirely new generation of gaming systems and new technology, and 2k5 still is the best is the reason people are so upset. Madden is still at least one year away from resetting that bar, but it shows a lot of promise.

That doesn't make any sense. Aside from the fact that competition makes companies push harder to keep up with their competiters , it's logical to want to have two quality products on the market, rather than one. One game may do something or have something that other game doesn't .

I'm sure a lot of people don't limit themselves to one game in other genres. I'd love the chance to own two quality football games.

[backbreaker]

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

lol, it's obvious that people with opposite views are going to get talked down by EA haters in this thread, yet I get baited in every time. While it's true we know virtually nothing about how this judge thinks, it's an easy way to justify entirely ignoring any post you don't want to consider.

But keep your hopes high and continue to believe what you want. I'd love to have another era of competition in NFL gaming, but it's done right now, by the NFL's choice. People only care about this suit because of the exclusive license, yet nothing I've read even indicates this class action suit would have the teeth to void it.

I'm not an EA *****, I'm a bad/mediocre game *****. I love video game football, and EA is making a less than stellar product. Again, me like you think its a pipe dream, but I'm hoping like hell the judge rules against EA, not because I'm a ***** only because I like good video game football. I get tired of one game I can play the other for a while and cycle through like I used to. I hate that I can't do that anymore. I play MLB 2k9 sometime, I got rid of it the first week and end up buying it again to compliment the show.

You know Yeah I'm a *****, I resemble that remark. I hate Mediocrity.

[rm217]

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

I really dont understand why people are just sitting here defending EA. Why wouldn't you want competition in the gaming industry seriously? I understand if you are in love with EA and are a loyal fan, but it just boggles my mind that people are defending and rooting for EA to win, its almost ignorant.

I couldn't agree more. Competition breeds higher quality product period!

[JMD]

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

Look at it this way. ESPN bought the rights to Monday Night Football. Does this mean another network cannot show football on a Monday night? Of course it doesn't. It just means that another network can't show NFL football on Monday night. It's a brand issue and has nothing to do with the big umbrella of football. Same thing with video games. EA has the license to make NFL football games. They are the only company that can make an NFL game with NFL licensed teams and players. They are not the only company that can make a football game. Is it hard to make a competing game without the NFL license? Of course it is. But the option is there. When people talk about EA having a monopoly it just makes me laugh.


People really need to study up on business and what a monopoly truly is before they start clogging up our judicial system with junk like this.

Laugh all you want but you are wrong. EA does have a monopoly on NFL Football games. Just as you said above ESPN has Monday night football, NFL Football. Yes another network could show some other non NFL football game on Monday night but no one would be watching, just as no one wants to buy a football game that is not an NFL FOOTBALL GAME. EA HAS A MONOPOLY ON NFL FOOTBALL GAMES.

When only one company is allowed to provide a product it is a monopoly. Plain and simple.

[RaiderKtulu]

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

Laugh all you want but you are wrong. EA does have a monopoly on NFL Football games. Just as you said above ESPN has Monday night football, NFL Football. Yes another network could show some other non NFL football game on Monday night but no one would be watching, just as no one wants to buy a football game that is not an NFL FOOTBALL GAME. EA HAS A MONOPOLY ON NFL FOOTBALL GAMES.

When only one company is allowed to provide a product it is a monopoly. Plain and simple.

A. Why does "NFL Football" get to be a separate market?

B. Why should the NFL (or NBA, MLB, etc) not have the right to decide who is allowed to use their properties?

[CSL]

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

I thought there were some really sad, sad people on here with their constant whining over the smallest Madden faults but this is a whole other level. The term 'get a life' is way overused but in this case, the people that are responsible for this 'case' going forward really need to literally get a life. Pathetic.

[GTheorenHobbes]

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

A. Why does "NFL Football" get to be a separate market?

B. Why should the NFL (or NBA, MLB, etc) not have the right to decide who is allowed to use their properties?

This was posted on ESPN's site all the way back in 2001, but it's still interesting IMO:

"Q: What is the antitrust exemption and how did baseball get it?

A: Any business that operates across state borders -- and therefore participates in interstate commerce -- is subject to antitrust legislation. Attempts to control trade and monopolize may be deemed illegal by federal circuit courts under the Sherman and Clayton acts.

Baseball has been exempt from these antitrust laws since 1922, when the Supreme Court ruled in its favor in Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore, Inc. v. National Baseball Clubs. The Supreme Court determined even though there was scheduling of games across state lines, those games were intrastate events since the travel from one state to another was "not the essential thing," Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote in the decision.

Baltimore, a member of the Federal League that operated as a major league in 1914-15, had sued the National and American Leagues, charging the Federal League's inability to sign players was due to antitrust violations.

At the time of the 1922 ruling, the National and American Leagues were merely umbrella organizations. They arranged the schedules and set the rules, but the business was entirely local in the sense that there was no revenue sharing, no radio or television and no national sponsors or licensing deals.

By virtue of the exemption, coupled with decades of reluctance of various courts to overrule, baseball is the only sport, or business for that matter, that has an exemption to the extent that it does.

Q: Things have changed since 1922. Why does the exemption still exist?

A: The exemption was not considered again by the Supreme Court until 1953 in Toolson v. New York Yankees, Inc. George Toolson, a Yankee minor leaguer, sued over the reserve clause (which binds a player to one organization), claiming it blocked his path to the major leagues. In the decision, the Supreme Court did not deny that baseball was not interstate commerce. Instead, the court ruled that when the Sherman Act was enacted in 1890, Congress didn't intend it to include baseball -- that the Sherman Act was more closely directed to the monopolies and trusts of the robber barons like John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie.

Q: Why don't other sports have the antitrust exemption?

A: For 18 years after Toolson, in case after case, judges admitted that the baseball exemption was flawed, but it was never overruled. Exemptions for boxing, football and basketball were denied in the higher courts, while hockey and golf antitrust exemptions were also denied in the lower courts."

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print...707&type=story

[countryboy]

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

Are there any updates in the proceedings of the case?

[mvandor]

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

Would I like to see an end to the exclusivity deal? Sure, I hate it.

Do I think this suit will succeed on its merits? Nope.

[GTheorenHobbes]

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

Are there any updates in the proceedings of the case?

Actually, I'm not sure where the original story got its 9/14 trial date. According to this order, plaintiff's motion for class certification is due to be filed on 9/24/09, EA's response is due 11/23/09, plaintiffs' reply is due 12/23/09, and a hearing is set for 01/14/10.

http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache%3AfzYvElOwUkcJ%3Amedia.libsyn.com%2Fmedia%2Fgamepolitics%2Fpecover-order-060809.pdf+pecover+suit+september+2009&hl=en&gl=us

Meanwhile, the meter on EA's legal expense for this case continues to run.