Realistically, do you see the NFL ending the exclusivity deal?

[Exonerated]

Quote: Originally Posted by Tyrant8RDFL

I'm going to be the one who says this, but the NFL itself will drop the whole idea of the exclusive deal. They will go back to letting everyone make a NFL game, and pay their royalties to the NFL. I know many of you won't agree, but it will happen. Just watch, and remember you head it here first.

But they make more money off the exclusivity deal.

[canes21]

But I talked with Goodell and he said he cares about fans more than money....

Wait, nevermind....

[N@X_WiZaRD]

Quote: Originally Posted by Exonerated

Madden NFL 2005 5.77 million: 4.35 million in US (PS2), 1.42 million in US (Xbox) Madden NFL 2006 5.12 million: 3.71 million in US (PS2), 1.41 million in US (Xbox) Madden NFL 2007 4.72 million: 2.8 million in US (PS2), 1.72 million in US (Xbox 360) Madden NFL 2008 3.61 million: 1.9 million in US (PS2), 1.51 million in US (Xbox 360) Madden NFL 2009 2.3 million first month LOL @ source

Source or not though. They're definitely consistent with Valdarez's graph with the PS2's declining sales. Unfortunately, they're primarily PS2 sales though, lol, so yeah ... f*cked up on that.

But yea, it definitely seems that the PS3 and Xbox 360 sales are gradually increasing and decreasing by a range of 3-9% every release though (somewhat canceling each other out). So there isn't any precipitous decline or anything. But it will be interesting to see the extent to which remainder of the PS2 population will successfully convert into next-gen madden customers. We'll see I guess.

[mestevo]

Just like Sunday Ticket exclusivity, they likely make more money now than they would if it was open to all (which is why they're exclusive to begin with).

They will continue to add more services to it to bring more value to the title for end users and generate even more money, any problems at EA won't derail the money maker that is Madden. People who don't like Madden are just a very vocal minority.

[Valdarez]

Quote: Originally Posted by Bgamer90

Alright, that seems believable (notice the PS2 sales). Is that from NPD?

It's from VGChartz

[Valdarez]

Quote: Originally Posted by Exonerated

@ Valderez Looks like the demise of the PS2 and the lack of uptake on PS3 is a major factor. 2007 was the biggest year because PS2 wasn't gone yet, and 360 received a massive boost.

Yeah, and this generation Wii is the best console seller and they can't give the game away on the Wii.

Which makes you think only the hardcore are interested in the game, and the game doesn't cater to casual. Hence Madden 2011's direction.

[adembroski]

Madden 10 outsold Madden 09... it started slow but had a very strong holiday season.

Anyways, regarding the court case. I can't say that transcript gives me a lot of faith in the civil judicial system. A lot of people absolutely clueless on the subject. You'd think they'd do some research.

Anyways, here's my take... and no, I'm not a lawyer, but yes, I have studied law as part of my political science/pre-law major. Not there yet, of course, but it's an informed opinion, compared to the total layman.

First is the definition of Monopoly. EA does not have a monopoly, they have exclusive access to a privately owned intellectual property. The only question here is whether the product is "Video Game" or "Football Video Game". I lean toward "Video Game"... the majority of gamers aren't sports exclusive, even sports gamers. I put off FIFA a couple years ago because I wanted to buy Dragon Age that month... Madden is in direct competition with games outside the genre. You would have to define the product all the way down to "Licensed NFL Football Game" to call Madden a monopoly.

The trouble with that, however, is that the NFL is a property. It's privately owned. The trademarks, logos, color combination, uniform designs, team names, etc. are all owned by the National Football League. Saying the NFL must allow any company that wants a license to have one is the exact same thing as saying Tom Clancy must allow any publisher to sell his books, or any studio to use Kevin Smith's scripts. We'd have 10 versions of Clerks from 10 different studios by 10 different directors, and Kevin Smith would profit basically zero because he'd have no right to decide what is done with his intellectual property.

I use Kevin Smith as an example primarily because he's someone most of us can identify with, unlike the NFL. He was not rich, maxed out his credit cards to put together a flimsy cast of local actors and used outdated equipment to make a classic that most people love. This made him rich, and he went on to make more movies and get richer. It's a great story, and only possible if intellectual properties are protected and their owners are permitted to profit from their creation.

The NFL isn't a rags to riches story, but it's the same principle. You set the precedent that the NFL cannot do with it's own property what it will, then the ruling will become reference case for anyone trying to get a hold of a property they have no right too.

This isn't a matter of what we want. The right way to affect this outcome is to go to the NFL, not EA, not legislators, and certainly not the courts. Ultimately, the NFL has the right to do with its IP what it wants, and for all of our sakes, it should damn well stay that way. Otherwise, you might just be destroying the next Kevin Smith before he even gets started.

Oh, and the claim that "the deal allowed EA to raise prices" is absolute garbage. Madden is, and always has been, exactly the same price as the industry standard. You might be able to make an anti-trust argument against the industry as a whole being that everyone sets their prices the same and there are no price wars, but I think it's pretty clear that the market will bare the existing prices for a non-essential item. I think 59.99 is high, personally, and I think there is a bit of unspoken collaboration with every company following the first-party (Microsoft and Sony) publisher's leads, but I don't think you could prove that it's willful (unless they're at that point because Sony and Microsoft require it, in which case, it could be part of the licensing process to produce a game for their console... another licensing issue, another ownership issue).

Which brings me to the question of whether a company should have to be licensed by Microsoft to make a game for the 360... but that's not related to I'll stop.

[OrangeCrush]

I voted "renewed" because the NFL is in love with Madden. The NFL doesn't care that Madden does not simulate football properly, they just care about the amount of money EA is paying them for the license.

I pray to God the NFL allows other developers back in to the mix. But I'm just pessimistic in that regard.