Maddens legal battle starts today 09/14/2009!

[sicksteen]

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

It may not be a monopoly by definition but everyone knows that after 2K was gone, Madden had no competition and they kept selling us the same crappy game over and over, and by the looks of Madden 10 they did it again.

[Trevytrev11]

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

It may not be a monopoly by definition but everyone knows that after 2K was gone, Madden had no competition and they kept selling us the same crappy game over and over, and by the looks of Madden 10 they did it again.

IMO, we are as much to blame as them. If you can use minimum effort and money and generate close to the same revenue as you can by using maximum effort and money, it's hard to fault them. Having pride in a great game is wonderful, but it's not what keeps the EA shareholders happy, which in the end, is the goal of any publicly traded company.

We are all passionate about sports games, but until "we" put our foot down and refuse to collectively open our wallets to pay for a game that doesn't meet our expectations, this will never end. There will be no reason for EA to make a change.

It just doesn't make sense for any company to purposely become financially less efficeient from one year to another. The goal of almost any company is to increase profit and you do that as much, if not more, by keeping costs down than you do by increasing sales, especially in todays economy. So for them to dump another $500K or $1M into this game, it would have to generate at least that much more for them to even consider it.

Until they are given a stern reason (basically a huge decline in sales) to completely change the effort they put in to this game, it's never going to happen. There is no reason to do it.

All the complaining doesn't mean jack to them if people are still buying the game, especially when they buy it the next year as well.

[huskerwr38]

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

IMO, we are as much to blame as them. If you can use minimum effort and money and generate close to the same revenue as you can by using maximum effort and money, it's hard to fault them. Having pride in a great game is wonderful, but it's not what keeps the EA shareholders happy, which in the end, is the goal of any publicly traded company.

What do you mean it's hard to fault them? It's entirely their fault, that is taking advantage of the consumer. That's just as worse than a used car salesman selling a crappy car, slapping paint on it and calling it a new car. Only a person with low ethical and moral standards would say something like that.

[rm217]

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

Wow. This argument has taken us all the way back to the Founding Fathers. Just remember, Washington grew hemp.

It means that much.

[KBLover]

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

What do you mean it's hard to fault them? It's entirely their fault, that is taking advantage of the consumer. That's just as worse than a used car salesman selling a crappy car, slapping paint on it and calling it a new car. Only a person with low ethical and moral standards would say something like that.

If the customers didn't buy - then they'd have to do something to entice them in.

If they can almost reprint this game with 2011 rosters (not saying they will) and make the same money - who's at fault?

I say it's shared blame. 50/50 - the company "shouldn't" do that, but the consumer "shouldn't" fall for it and give the company $60 for nothing more than a roster update.

Consumers have rights, but they also have the ultimate choice when it comes to things that are not essential to have - like video games. Don't like it, don't buy it. Doesn't matter how unethical a company is. In fact, if you feel that strongly, you should not buy on principle alone. Vote your dollars by keeping them in your wallet/bank account/credit card.

[Dynamite]

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

I think a lot of people, understandably unhappy with the exclusive deal, fail to see the legal and ethical ramifications of what they're asking for.

You're asking government to strip the NFL of the right to their own trademarks. This becomes precedent. If the NFL doesn't have the right to license their trademarks as they see fit, then that's going to cross over into other areas.

Any company in the world can start marketing NFL jerseys, caps, leagues can start up using the same team names and colors, even logos. All of the sudden you totally cut off all of the NFL's secondary revenue streams because other companies can step in and do the same thing cheaper. That might sound good on the surface, but it extends to every facet of business. Tom Clancy writes a book, and 15 publishers start printing it, none of them with any obligation to pay Tom Clancy a dime for the work. Kanye West (God Forbid) puts out another album, and every record company in existence is selling that album. Blizzard finally releases Starcraft 2, then EA releases Starcraft 3, and Blizzard says screw it and releases Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas 2.

Does this sound like a fair market to you?

Maybe if it wasn't a slippery slope fallacy, I would say that was pretty well argued. There's nothing that in this lawsuit that removes copyright law at all. Nothing at all would suggest that these properties or their holders would be in any danger of being ripped off.

This lawsuit, and others like it, seek to argue the point of managing IPs and exclusionary licensing as a way to drive up the price of sports games. It is asking the question: is the NFL one entity or 32? And can the NFL carry all of the licenses for each franchise and bargain with those as a collective, or is each team free to enter into it's own agreements?

Essentially, if this lawsuit is held for the plaintiffs, the only things that will change are within the realm of multiple holdings within the same industry, and whether one large entity can simultaneously claim to have multiple smaller pieces and negotiate deals for all of them collectively. To apply it to the league, instead of there being one league wide supplier of equipment, one team could be equipped and outfitted by Nike, one by Reebok, one by Adidas, so on and so forth. That would also mean that official jerseys could be sold by many different people as long as they negotiate with the team for their own license, instead of the NFL being the final arbiter of who does and who doesn't get to make team merchandise.

It would also open up the possibility for NFLPA specific licenses, meaning that if 2k/989/whoever can't make a game with NFL logos and teams, then they could license the players and make them approximate, kind of like what Madden did with the 64 version. Also worth noting is that the scope of this lawsuit is extremely limited, only merchandise, image licensing, and collective IP bargaining is under litigation.

I think, and this is just my opinion, that Jefferson and Madison would agree with most here - that the NFL has created their own product and should determine the control of that product.

The NFL did not create football, they simply organized teams, which they also did not create nor fund, nor do they have any claims to the design, ownership, or day to day operations of any team in the league. Why then should they be able to negotiate for these teams and essentially regulate their own trademark.

[ODogg]

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

The NFL did not create football, they simply organized teams, which they also did not create nor fund,

The NFL nor EA is stopping anyone from creating a football game either or else Black College Football for example would not have been created.

nor do they have any claims to the design, ownership, or day to day operations of any team in the league.

The NFL does have claims to how their trademarks are used and their designs are sold and marketed. Jerry Jones could not choose to open a Dallas Cowboys strip club for example. The Rooneys could not sell a Pittsburgh Steelers NFL game without the NFL's permission.

Why then should they be able to negotiate for these teams and essentially regulate their own trademark.

They can negotiate for the teams because the NFL functions as a collective entity and not on an individual level. Yes there are 32 individual teams but they all revenue share and the owners make collective, majority based decisions.

Perhaps some owners were actually opposed to the EA deal, I don't know but since the majority was in favor then it is reality. As far as I know there have been no complaints at all about the deal internally.

[TimLawNYC]

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

It's really interesting to see that the discussion here has focused on the issue that ends up being the primary fight in every single antitrust case ever brought--market definition. So often, antitrust cases are won and lost not on the strength of the actual legal arguments, but on the way the court chooses to define the relevant market. In every such case, the plaintiff or government is alleging some arguably anticompetitive conduct, and the question most often becomes whether the defendant has sufficient market power to make that conduct rise to the level of foreclosing competition necessary to show a violation of antitrust laws.

Here, we're going down the same road. Many of you have argued either for a narrow market definition, like every antitrust plaintiff, by claiming that the relevant market here is either NFL football video games or pro football video games (on the theory that the NFL license is necessary to create a profitable football game). Others have done what every antitrust defendant in history has done and argued for a broad definition of the relevant market--i.e. video games in general. Sure, maybe nobody else can make an NFL football game, but thousands of other games get released every year, so this license isn't affecting anybody's choice in buying video games, and it's not stopping any company from making other video games. Of course, there's no "right" answer to this; it's all dependent on what you believe, because, as in most other antitrust cases, there are solid arguments for either definition.

[SLOYAROLE]

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

***WARNING*** SKIP THIS IF YOU HAVE ADD ***WARNING***

I haven't read through the entire thread yet, but the guy in Post #20 provided a link to something everyone is overlooking and I wanted to get this point in before I forget it while reading the rest of the thread.

Here goes: The NFL is arguing that it is ONE PRODUCT, not 32 SEPARATE PRODUCTS. Basically, the NFL is saying, "the Detroit Lions can't appear in any video games because it's not it's own organization. It's just one of 32 flavors we sell." Look at it like this, Coca-Cola owns Sprite. Coca-Cola isn't going to let me open a vending machine company, and start putting Sprite in them unless they are getting a piece of the pie. I can't go to Sam's Club or Wally-Mart and buy my Sprite to fill my machines. I have to buy it directly form the Coca-Cola bottler in my area.

It's the same way with Dr. Pepper. In some parts of the country (like where I live), Coca-Cola has the distribution contract for Dr. Pepper. In my hometown (1000 miles from where I live now), Pepsi has the distribution contract with Dr. Pepper. It's funny where I live because even though Coca-Cola has the contract with Dr. Pepper, Pizza-Hut (who has a contract with Pepsi), gets their Dr. Pepper from (take a guess)...Pepsi. It's a little complicated. Since Pizza-Hut has a contract to sell Dr. Pepper in their restaurants (in addition to the exclusive contract with Pepsi), in places like my hometown it's no problem. They just get when the Pepsi guy comes. But in places like where I currently live, since Coca-Cola sells Dr. Pepper, they have to have it imported in on their big rigs with the rest of their pizza stuff.

What the NFL wants to do is keep each team from being a Dr. Pepper and let each team independently choose how it's images are used/sold.. Now the owners like this because they will negotiate with the league (the NFL) when it comes to player/coaches salaries and contracts. Basically, the players and coaches will become employees of the league rather than employees of the team. This basically renders the unions powerless.

If the league, meaning the NFL as a whole, generates (let's just go with a random inaccurate numeber), 500 billion dollars a year, the league and the owners will decide how much goes to player and coaches. The owner of the team is no longer obligated to pay the Matt Stafford's of the world $40 million dollars before they ever step foot on an NFL field. The Jamrcus Russel's and Michael Crabtree's of the world would know before they even enter the draft what their salary will be based on what pick they are. No more hold outs. The NFL sets your salary, not William Clay Ford or Al Davis.

Now, with the videogame fiasco, if the courts rule that the NFL is not Baskin Robins selling 32 flavors and in fact, each of the 32 teams is a separate flavor selling it's brand to the NFL, then that's good news. Here's why:

Strictly concerning videogames, 2K Sports or 989 Sports could bargain with the Union to agree on a videogame. Let's say 2K offered the union $10 million dollars to use it's players likenessess in 2K11. The players and union would negotiate how much each player would receive of the $10 million. There may be players on the teams who are not members of the union so they will not be in the game and will receive no cut of the $10 million the union players would receive from 2K Sports (a la Barry Bonds, Michael Jordan). This is great for the players because they can profit from the game without the NFL's restrictions.

So, what we would be left with is whether or not the NFL would license it's logo to 2K Sports. Let's say Goodell says no. Then what? Well, we'd go back to the Techmo Bowl and RBI Baseball days of old. We'd have the teams and players but no actual NFL license. Imagine All Pro Football 2K8 with current rosters but no NFL Logos...sweet huh??? The teams would have to be fake names but we would actually have a Detroit, Chicago, Dallas, etc. using fictional team names and logos but we would have our players.

This is what's at stake. Not only for gamers, but for the NFLPA. If the NFLPA can operate outside of the NFL umbrella in terms of anti-trust legalities, we all win. That money fron 2K Sports goes directly to the NFLPA and doesn't have to funnel through the league. Go back and play Techmo Bowl. Even though we didn't have the "San Fransisco 49ers", we still had "#16 Montana". And if you watch the intro screen, it's actually an NFLPA licensed game, not an NFL licensed game.

So, in the end, the NFL still had control over it's likenes but the players also had control over theirs. I would love to have and NFLPA licensed All Pro Football 2K11 but the NFL is keeping the that from happening. The NFL can still control it's likeness, but let the NFLPA controls theirs too.

[Echopax]

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

That's one hell of a first post, SLOYAROLE.

Hopefully EA and the NFL are on the losing side of this case so everyone in football-game-world can be satisfied. Madden guys can get their game, 2K guys can get theirs.

ESPN NFL 2K11... it just sounds so... right.

[SLOYAROLE]

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

Thanks man. I think everyone is missing the point on this.

That's one hell of a first post, SLOYAROLE.

Hopefully EA and the NFL are on the losing side of this case so everyone in football-game-world can be satisfied. Madden guys can get their game, 2K guys can get theirs.

ESPN NFL 2K11... it just sounds so... right.

[AdamV4xSBChamp]

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

One aspect of this debate that is rarely touched on (if at all) which is a very good possibility is that EA wont even want to shell out the cash for the exclusive rights in 2012. If the sales figures dont warrant purchasing them, EA wont do it. They can easily still rely on brand recognition and get their sales with Madden, regardless. And chances are no other company is going to be willing to or be able to afford to buy the exclusive rights if the NFL offers them. Last time I checked EA sports is not in the "spite" business, they're in the making money business, they wont buy the NFL rights just to piss you off if its not goinig to profit them (as sales figures suggest it hasnt).

[Cryolemon]

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

[very long post]

Probably the most sane and well thought out post I've ever read on this board.

[Ice Cream Truck]

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

Read the first page and now I'm confused. Why would a consumer be FOR EA having exclusive rights to NFL gaming? Do you work for EA? Even if you're a fan of Madden, you should want competition.


And then someone else goes on a rant about anyone can make a football game, as if people want to play with fictional players lol... I'm not gonna bother reading any further, consumers should all be on the same side in this debate.

[Dmacho]

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

That's one hell of a first post, SLOYAROLE.

Hopefully EA and the NFL are on the losing side of this case so everyone in football-game-world can be satisfied. Madden guys can get their game, 2K guys can get theirs.

ESPN NFL 2K11... it just sounds so... right.

I hate to break to you, but if EA loses this case( and I hope they do) it's likely that you'll have to wait for 2k12 . 2k11 would need to be in development right now to be released by next August.