SEC, Pac-12, Big Ten Won't License Trademarks in Future Video Games

[nate1986]

Re: SEC, Big Ten Won't License Trademarks in Future Video Games

I think EA is gonna stop making college football games soon, having "schools" known as "south bend" doesn't seem to have the same appeal when u know it's a knock off

[aukevin]

Re: SEC, Big Ten Won't License Trademarks in Future Video Games

I don't necessarily care about Conference Names, but if there aren't real school names and logos then I won't buy until they return.

[bad_philanthropy]

Re: The SEC Won't License Trademarks in Future Video Games

Hold on. I'm not attacking you. This is just a discussion. I'm really trying to understand your thought process here. I just dont get in this age why someone would not buy the game because of a logo. The confusion should be lessened by marketing and by the amount of info available on the web.

Back in 1994-95, when EA released its last unlicensed game, I could see people being confused because most people didnt have the internet and marketing budgets were much smaller. Just cant see that happening now.

Also saying "there are dark times ahead" is kind of a declarative statement.

I think appearance of logos and authentic images do a lot for some people in terms of immersion. Just look at FIFA vs. PES. For a while PES was by far the superior game, but in terms of licenses FIFA had the lions share. Now FIFA sold more largely on the basis of brand recognition, but I have to believe that if FIFA didn't have the Premier League brand it would be less of a draw even if it had some facsimile "English" league.

I think the draw of simulation video games goes beyond representation of its subject authentically in terms of gameplay and only somewhat authentically off the field and in visual details. There is a keen focus on details these days including getting all the licensed equipment and visual icons in the game. If this was never thought to produce any draw in the first place why license anything really? FIFA loves to announce whenever they've signed a new league or team to a deal.

It seems people generally want sports games to resemble what they see in real life, and the presence of authentic images an icons—no matter how shallow it seems—is bound to be a big part of capturing that sense realism.

Is there a difference between caring if a conference is visually represented authentically versus a specific team? What is the line about what is and isn't an acceptable level of visual authenticity?

[aholbert32]

Re: The SEC Won't License Trademarks in Future Video Games

I think appearance of logos and authentic images do a lot for some people in terms of immersion. Just look at FIFA vs. PES. For a while PES was by far the superior game, but in terms of licenses FIFA had the lions share. Now FIFA sold more largely on the basis of brand recognition, but I have to believe that if FIFA didn't have the Premier League brand it would be less of a draw even if it had some facsimile "English" league.

I think the draw of simulation video games goes beyond representation of its subject authentically in terms of gameplay and only somewhat authentically off the field and in visual details. There is a keen focus on details these days including getting all the licensed equipment and visual icons in the game. If this was never thought to produce any draw in the first place why license anything really? FIFA loves to announce whenever they've signed a new league or team to a deal.

It seems people generally want sports games to resemble what they see in real life, and the presence of authentic images an icons—no matter how shallow it seems—is bound to be a big part of capturing that sense realism.

The difference is there was a game with the leagues and logos (Fifa). If 2k was releasing a college football game with the SEC, I could understand your point. But next year its EA or nothing. I cant believe a college football fan would choose not to play a college football video game just because the SEC logo isnt in the game.

I could see people complaining ("Why isnt the SEC in the game. Why is it called South 14") but still buying it because Bama is in the game.

Also if Fifa had the 20 teams but not the premier league branding, people would still buy the game

[SIX------]

Re: SEC, Big Ten Won't License Trademarks in Future Video Games

As long as the schools are there everything else can be worked around just like the naming of the rosters. I dont care if the game doesnt come with the SEC conference if i can just go name it that after i get the game.

[pietasterp]

Re: The SEC Won't License Trademarks in Future Video Games

Hold on. I'm not attacking you. This is just a discussion. I'm really trying to understand your thought process here. I just dont get in this age why someone would not buy the game because of a logo. The confusion should be lessened by marketing and by the amount of info available on the web.

Back in 1994-95, when EA released its last unlicensed game, I could see people being confused because most people didnt have the internet and marketing budgets were much smaller. Just cant see that happening now.

Also saying "there are dark times ahead" is kind of a declarative statement.

Yeah, no worries man - I didn't think you were attacking me, certainly nothing personal (I always enjoy your input into these discussions and over on the ol' boxing forum). I just mis-read the tone of your replies. Tone is really hard to convey/interpret properly on the internet. Mea culpa.

Anyway, I guess the point I was trying to make was ultimately not that sophisticated...sort of a "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" type of argument, which is to say if the conferences are making the determination that the risk/benefit profile of staying in business with EA is slanted too far to the downside, it would make sense to me that at least some of the individual schools would use the same analysis. But that may be over-simplifying things.

I don't think that people would be 'confused' per se about the lack of the SEC or B1G conferences in the game, and I wasn't making that argument. I don't think it's a matter of marketing, I just think that in this day and age, the expectation is that the EA NCAA College Football game will contain anything and everything that comes with watching a Saturday of college ball on TV. Anything that takes away from that experience, it seems to me, would drive at least some people away from the game.

And I have to admit, embarrassed as I am to do so, that not having the major conferences branded is a major negative for me...I don't know why, I never would have guessed that about myself since mostly I just care how the game plays, but I guess I've been conditioned to expect a "if it's in the game..." type experience. Sad, right? That may be grounds for OS dismissal to admit....

[nortobc]

Re: SEC, Big Ten Won't License Trademarks in Future Video Games

I don't know...All Pro Football 2k didn't do very well at all, and there are a lot of pro football fans...

Yeah, but there was another NFL game out there that had the NFL teams and players.

[pietasterp]

Re: SEC, Big Ten Won't License Trademarks in Future Video Games

Yeah, but there was another NFL game out there that had the NFL teams and players.

Touche, nortobc.

[BA2929]

Re: SEC, Big Ten Won't License Trademarks in Future Video Games

NAIA Football 15?

[areobee401]

Re: SEC, Big Ten Won't License Trademarks in Future Video Games

I'd be totally on board with a college football game with generic schools, conferences and players. If given the option to edit player and school names, rearrange conferences, and upload our own logos into the game, I think it could be for the better. You could either recreate what the NCAA looks like today or make something completely unique.

Could even make online dynasties more fun than they already are.

But of course it would all come down to how much customization the user is allowed to have.

[nortobc]

Re: SEC, Big Ten Won't License Trademarks in Future Video Games

A large majority of the people who play this game still don't know named rosters exist, there's no way they'll get on board with a game that requires heavily customization just to get to the baseline. That being said, if it were any other company I could see them taking a gamble on that type of game but not EA.

NCAA Football was never one of their big ticket games to warrant all the extra effort it would take to sustain it. They'll cut their losses and funnel NCAA users toward Madden.

Well then some other company will make a college football game because there are BIG BUCKS to be made from even a generic, customizable college football game. I'd buy it in a heartbeat.

[nortobc]

Re: SEC, Big Ten Won't License Trademarks in Future Video Games

If EA had just made 1 solid NCAA title this generation, it really wouldn't be that much of an issue. We could just update rosters and customize conferences and still be able to play until all the legal matters get hammered.

But instead they released inferior products year after year. I never envisioned a new fall season going by without rushing out and getting NCAA football. I owned every one since Bill Walsh. But now I'm actually happy if this is the end. EA got a free pass for too long. They made piles of money while rehashing the same engine and finding a way to break some working feature or delete a working feature every year.

Oh well, all things eventually come to an end, and apparently so does the era of college sports video games.

Ya'll are unbelievable with your thought process and negativity. There will be a college football game next year and in 10 years...mark it down.

[herropreese]

Re: SEC, Big Ten Won't License Trademarks in Future Video Games

Still not that big of a deal.

I would still buy the game if say, the Big 12 didn't sign on.

[ncaa98]

Re: SEC, Big Ten Won't License Trademarks in Future Video Games

What if we could swap Team Builder Schools where it could mirror real life???

[GisherJohn24]

Re: SEC, Big Ten Won't License Trademarks in Future Video Games

Haven't read all the posts, but does this mean that the conferences that pulled out, could tehy let another company do game and give permission to that new developer, say if 2K made a new NCAA game?