Would you buy this game if all they worked on was gameplay?

[Lekcots11]

Quote: Originally Posted by tested29

This. I wish there was a way to turn the presentation things off. All I want is accurate player models and gameplay.

can't be too accurate or they'll get sued

[PowerofRed25]

Quote: Originally Posted by Lekcots11

can't be too accurate or they'll get sued

PLEASE stop with this. PLEASE. It is tired, it is naive and it sounds idiotic every last time it is posted on these boards. Existing case law has all but guaranteed EA's (and any other game's) rights in cases like this.

TRANSFORMATIVE FAIR USE

Video games are protected under the first amendment in the same way books and movies are. The environment created within the game is an expression and an interpretation and as long as it remains that way (doesn't use the ACTUAL image of a player), the game is protected under free speech.

Given the interactive nature of video games and the ability to user generate content (roster editing), any amount of player likenesses are protected. In this case, the "transformation" that allows for fair use is the video game itself, not the changing of one or two things on their likeness within the game.

From the decision on the case:

Quote:

To be clear, it is not the user‘s alteration of Hart‘s image that is critical. What matters for my analysis of EA‘s First Amendment right is that EA created the mechanism by which the virtual player may be altered, as well as the multiple permutations available for each virtual player image.

Put even more bluntly, EA could go so far as replicating a players face, bio and equipment down to the last hair, pound and thread and be completely protected in their right to do so. If players want recourse against their likenesses being used, they better address it through the licensor, not the licensee. (in this case, the NCAA and their own school).

[Ziza9Noles94]

Quote: Originally Posted by DorianDonP

Nope. My $60 should encompass more than one layer of gaming. If I buy a pizza, I just don't want the cheese. I'd like the dough, toppings, sauce, and maybe even some hot wings.

This. Plus, it's not just the $60 cost of the game I factor into my decision. It's the hundreds of dollars I spent on both next gen consoles that factors in as well. The game needs to have all of the pepperoni, sausage, extra cheese (no pun intended) and better be Original Rays on the LES big in terms of size. Basically it needs to scream next gen in every aspect, not just gameplay for me to think, "yeah this is worth my next gen purchase. So visually it has to be great. Gameplay wise, also great. The total immersion factor, bands, crowds, sounds, ESPN, all need to be there. Now I need to go get a slice.

[Lekcots11]

Quote: Originally Posted by PowerofRed25

PLEASE stop with this. PLEASE. It is tired, it is naive and it sounds idiotic every last time it is posted on these boards. Existing case law has all but guaranteed EA's (and any other game's) rights in cases like this. TRANSFORMATIVE FAIR USE Video games are protected under the first amendment in the same way books and movies are. The environment created within the game is an expression and an interpretation and as long as it remains that way (doesn't use the ACTUAL image of a player), the game is protected under free speech. Given the interactive nature of video games and the ability to user generate content (roster editing), any amount of player likenesses are protected. In this case, the "transformation" that allows for fair use is the video game itself, not the changing of one or two things on their likeness within the game. From the decision on the case: Put even more bluntly, EA could go so far as replicating a players face, bio and equipment down to the last hair, pound and thread and be completely protected in their right to do so. If players want recourse against their likenesses being used, they better address it through the licensor, not the licensee. (in this case, the NCAA and their own school).

You know, NCAA basketball 11 almost got in trouble for having players look too much like the real thing right? it's against NCAA rules. You can't have a model look anything like the player. Not one bit. it's just like how they can't put a player that's still in college on the cover. there is no way around it. case closed, shut the door. peace!!!

[PowerofRed25]

Quote: Originally Posted by Lekcots11

You know, NCAA basketball 11 almost got in trouble for having players look too much like the real thing right? it's against NCAA rules. You can't have a model look anything like the player. Not one bit. it's just like how they can't put a player that's still in college on the cover. there is no way around it. case closed, shut the door. peace!!!

Please stop posting false information on a subject you know absolutely nothing about. You do a disservice to yourself and the fools that believe what you and others like you are posting.

I encourage you to read the actual case law on the subject. Case law, not hyperbole and heresy that you seem to enjoy posting, the actual decisions by actual legal professionals who presumably know one or two things about the law.

Transformative use is a subsidiary of fair use, itself a subsidiary of copyright laws which in turn are subsidiary to free speech. Fair use allows people (or in this case a company) to use content as an expression of their own unique ideas, in this case virtual reality. Transformative use is in the same mold, allowing you to "transform" another's work in order to make something new or different. It is the same law that protect impersonators and cover bands from lawsuit by the original artist. Andy Warhol's silk screens of various celebrities needed not receive permission from the original person (or their estate, since many were dead) because they were transformative expressions of art.

It is because of that law and the use of it in interpreting Hart v Electronic Arts Inc that EA's rights in this matter are all but guaranteed, no matter how close a likeness is.

NCAA's rules have no matter here and in fact NCAA's rules actually further limit the player from claiming financial stake in his likeness. Had these guys won their cases, no financial gain would have come of it. THAT is against NCAA rules, nothing you are mentioning.

So again, please stop posting things like this because they only serve to promote a false understanding of the situation. The legal system has already spoken on the subject and given the precedents now established, I don't see what recourse these players would have against EA. However, if these players wanted to take legal recourse against their likeness being used for commercial game, they can and should sue both the NCAA and their parent institution. That is the only recourse that exists for both current and former players.

If you're interested in reading the 67 page opinion on the lawsuit by the US District Judge who ruled on it, feel free, you can find it here. I think I did a pretty good job of summarizing it for you though and if you want more legal opinions on the subject, you may google Hart v Electronic Arts Inc, I know it has been written about by a number of lawyers and legal professionals.

[Playmakers]

Quote: Originally Posted by PowerofRed25

Please stop posting false information on a subject you know absolutely nothing about. You do a disservice to yourself and the fools that believe what you and others like you are posting. I encourage you to read the actual case law on the subject. Case law, not hyperbole and heresy that you seem to enjoy posting, the actual decisions by actual legal professionals who presumably know one or two things about the law. Transformative use is a subsidiary of fair use, itself a subsidiary of copyright laws which in turn are subsidiary to free speech. Fair use allows people (or in this case a company) to use content as an expression of their own unique ideas, in this case virtual reality. Transformative use is in the same mold, allowing you to "transform" another's work in order to make something new or different. It is the same law that protect impersonators and cover bands from lawsuit by the original artist. Andy Warhol's silk screens of various celebrities needed not receive permission from the original person (or their estate, since many were dead) because they were transformative expressions of art. It is because of that law and the use of it in interpreting Hart v Electronic Arts Inc that EA's rights in this matter are all but guaranteed, no matter how close a likeness is. NCAA's rules have no matter here and in fact NCAA's rules actually further limit the player from claiming financial stake in his likeness. Had these guys won their cases, no financial gain would have come of it. THAT is against NCAA rules, nothing you are mentioning. So again, please stop posting things like this because they only serve to promote a false understanding of the situation. The legal system has already spoken on the subject and given the precedents now established, I don't see what recourse these players would have against EA. However, if these players wanted to take legal recourse against their likeness being used for commercial game, they can and should sue both the NCAA and their parent institution. That is the only recourse that exists for both current and former players. If you're interested in reading the 67 page opinion on the lawsuit by the US District Judge who ruled on it, feel free, you can find it here. I think I did a pretty good job of summarizing it for you though and if you want more legal opinions on the subject, you may google Hart v Electronic Arts Inc, I know it has been written about by a number of lawyers and legal professionals.

I think i've read like 3-4 of your post that somehow seem to go on a rant when ever someone brings up a lawsuit in regards to player likeness.

I'm just curious what if the NCAA themselves told EA to chill out on the player likeness?

Now whether they are or not the bottom line is someone is always trying to take EA to court over the situation (Player Likeness).

So, regardless if any of the lawsuits stand a chance of winning against EA or not......the accusers still have the right to file a lawsuit right?

Now on OS if i recall you don't make the rules on here buddy...

You can post all the legal documents/literature you desire but you telling any other poster who mentions anything about lawuits in regards to player likeness to stop posting just because you disagree with them is just as foolish.

They have every right to post on the forums just like you do and aslong as they are being respectful to other posters. I don't recall any OS policy telling them they can't post if they don't understand or know court laws.

I'd rather a guy give his opinion and be respectful to others even if he's 100% wrong about the situation than a guy who might be 100% right but show no respect towards others who post an opinion....

That is how your post sometimes come accross to me calling people fools who you know nothing about just because you don't agree with someones post.

[meepichi]

Being that I play these games primarily in coach mode or even cpu vs cpu, presentation is important to me. Of course most importantly is having everything be as realistic as possible on the field.

I'd love to have a good pre-game show that breaks down both teams that is skippable for those that don't want such things. For half time all I'd need is it to show the stats, I don't need to see highlights, and post game isn't all that important to me either. I would like a end of the week show that highlights the best of the week tho.

Having said that I'd still buy the game if just the game play was improved.

[Mauer4MVP]

I wouldn't even consider it.

The dynasty, recruiting, and everything else is what makes the game fun for a long time for me. If MVP didn't have those mini games or a great owner mode, I wouldn't probably have liked it as much.