09:48 PM - December 22, 2010 by Steve_OS
Gamasutra has some new info on the lawsuit.
|
|||||||||
|
Gamespot chimes in as well.
|
|||||||||
|
What do you think happens, out of all this?
Madden NFL 11 News Post
09:48 PM - December 22, 2010 by Steve_OSGamasutra has some new info on the lawsuit.
Gamespot chimes in as well.
What do you think happens, out of all this?
Madden NFL 11 Videos
Member Comments
# 81
spankdatazz22 @ 12/25/10 11:06 AM
|
|||||||||||||
|
# 82
King_B_Mack @ 12/25/10 01:05 PM
|
|||||||||||||
|
As I also said though, there seems to be very little argument here against EA if even 2K was going to (and it seems they were) raise their prices the following year.
|
|||||||||||||
|
I obviously don't know anything about their finances; it just doesn't seem like the smartest business move. The smart move would be what they did: Price your product cheaper than competitor to get people's attention and grab some impulse buys.
Of course the debate of whether or not it (the budget price) is a sustainable business model is an entirely different debate.
# 84
Kaanyr Vhok @ 12/25/10 08:14 PM
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
For the life of me I cant find the sales data on NFL 2k4 but I suspect it was down from 2k3 which sold about 1.5 million. 2k5 sold 3.5 million. Maybe it wouldn't have been 20 bucks. I doubt 2k6 would have been 20 bucks and I also doubt it would have been 50. Its more than reasonable to assume that NFL 2k and Madden would have been in a price war that would have kept the cost of both games under standard.
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
When the NFL made their move they knew who was going to pay. A simple analogy would be if I went to you and asked to buy your prize motorcycle and you turned me down twice. By putting it up to bid I would know how much you are going to pay and that I can probably get you to pay more. Exact same thing happened with EA and the NFL.
They knew EA was going to pay a ridiculous sum far more than Sega could afford and believe me if Sony or Microsoft would have made a move they would have made a one year big payout deal because Madden was too popular. It would have been a PR hit to Sony, MS and the NFL. This was an NFL EA deal from the start to finish. Offering it to bid was more of formality than anything. It was half a billion dollars. EA then went to secure college football and even arena football. If you think anyone else had a chance you are beyond naive. I got a sky scrapper sized statue of the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man for 20 grand on craigslist.
The wealthiest company typically does win a bidding war, yes that's unfair, not illegal..oh yeah and that's business.. With that being said if anyone really thinks if the exclusive agreement hadn't happened that 2K would have kept charging $19.99 each year for their football game then they are the naive ones. That was just a way to get the game out there to get people to try it, it was not a new pricing standard for football games.
Again, when a competitor lowers a price you often do so to match, that does not mean that's the new price from there on out nor does it mean that you've "exposed" yourself to being able to sell it at a lower price. EA lowered the price simply because they had to in order to compete. That may mean they were making very little to no money on Madden but had to lower the price to retain customers. This is no different than Amazon lowering the price on their video games to compete when Best Buy has a sale in order not to lose customers.
The real crux of the argument is that the price went back up after the competition was eliminated. However EA did not eliminate the competition, they had no way to do so on their own, the NFL eliminated it. And it makes perfect business sense to raise the price to the industry accepted standard once there was no reason to keep the price artificially low, since there was not a direct reason to keep it low. EA did not raise it above the industry accepted standard.
There simply is no blame here to be had on EA's part, they used sound business principles in how they lowered and raised their prices. Sure one can argue that theres an appearance here of some sort of impropriety but an analysis of the situation shows that the NFL simply chose to go with an exclusive agreement and thus the entire "competition eliminated directly relates to the price change" is not a valid argument.
The real crux of the argument is that the price went back up after the competition was eliminated. However EA did not eliminate the competition, they had no way to do so on their own, the NFL eliminated it. And it makes perfect business sense to raise the price to the industry accepted standard once there was no reason to keep the price artificially low, since there was not a direct reason to keep it low. EA did not raise it above the industry accepted standard.
There simply is no blame here to be had on EA's part, they used sound business principles in how they lowered and raised their prices. Sure one can argue that theres an appearance here of some sort of impropriety but an analysis of the situation shows that the NFL simply chose to go with an exclusive agreement and thus the entire "competition eliminated directly relates to the price change" is not a valid argument.
|
|||||||||||||
|
It doesn't become a question of fair market value when your dealing with stockholders.
Not to mention that once EA signed the exclusive deal they then had a massive amount of money to pay which would be a very legitimate justification for raising the price of their game, to recoup those moneys.
^^
exactly . if they continued to sell at $30 with the exclusive deal, They would not gain alot of profit. We would get many excuses where "we could not add "X" feature or cant afford more staff because we dont have alot of money or resources"
exactly . if they continued to sell at $30 with the exclusive deal, They would not gain alot of profit. We would get many excuses where "we could not add "X" feature or cant afford more staff because we dont have alot of money or resources"
They're not just setting the price to whatever they like, they've set the price to the commonly accepted industry standard which is $59. If they were charging $89.95 then the case you speak of, that they're setting the price to whatever they desire, would have some validity. It really doesn't make any sense whatsoever. And yes companies can do whatever they want so long as they aren't breaking any laws, that includes setting the price to whatever they want and if it doesn't sell then they'd be forced to lower it. That's how capitalism works, companies set a price they believe the market will bear and then adjust it as is necessary. In this case EA has not only not price gouged the market on their exclusive product when, truth be told, they probably could set the price higher and it would not be breaking any laws and would still sell well.
I just don't get it.
Why try the legal route, when there's another way.
A developer makes a football game with full customization (combo of NBA 2k11/Backbreaker) and they don't have to shell out money for a license or player likeness.
The first thing people do when they get a game is editing. Whether ratings, sliders or uniforms, it all depends on what editing features are open to them to use.
"Focus on the engine (gameplay), provied the body (presentation/franchise/online), give us some paints (full customization) and the gaming community will color it how they like it."
If I want NFL, I'll make it.
If I want College, I'll do it.
Maybe Juco or Highschool, it's on the gamer.
The point to this rant, is that there is an easier way around Exclusive Licenses w/out all the drama.
Why try the legal route, when there's another way.
A developer makes a football game with full customization (combo of NBA 2k11/Backbreaker) and they don't have to shell out money for a license or player likeness.
The first thing people do when they get a game is editing. Whether ratings, sliders or uniforms, it all depends on what editing features are open to them to use.
"Focus on the engine (gameplay), provied the body (presentation/franchise/online), give us some paints (full customization) and the gaming community will color it how they like it."
If I want NFL, I'll make it.
If I want College, I'll do it.
Maybe Juco or Highschool, it's on the gamer.
The point to this rant, is that there is an easier way around Exclusive Licenses w/out all the drama.
# 92
spankdatazz22 @ 12/27/10 05:11 PM
|
|||||||||||||
|
# 93
spankdatazz22 @ 12/27/10 05:16 PM
|
|||||||||||||
|
# 94
MoutonDocile @ 12/27/10 05:44 PM
|
|||||||||||||
|
While it's true that you can still buy a great football game without the NFL license, the majority just don't care if it's not licensed.
spankdatazz22 - I agree that EA did what they wanted to do all along but as I've stated many times, the license was the NFL's and various other entities to sell. That's where any sort of legal challenge should be focused, if at all. But again even then it'd make no sense to do that because they own their own product and can sell it to one dev or 20 devs, there is no "monopoly" issue on them and how they manage it since it's a private copyright of a non-public item.
|
|||||||||||||
|
Take a look at the usage of 3rd party apps like Finn's 2k/Backbreaker editors and Pocketscout's NCAA app for football alone.
The numbers are there that show the willingness/want for full customization.
I would also say that Finn's 2k editors had a role in encouraging what we see in NBA 2k11. Many are saying NBA 2k11 is the standard for future Sports games editing functions.
Also, I would take a look at Ian Cummings thread asking the community for their thought on the idea for future Madden releases.
They really don't have to go this route, but this case is bigger and goes far beyond video games.
Khaliib-
Those numbers are huge because of the people who come here, and to other sites.
General public= not us
General public= real teams out of the box
Non licensed = not a great seller
Yes, those things have users and an audience, but nowhere near the scale to justify an independent video game development.
Those numbers are huge because of the people who come here, and to other sites.
General public= not us
General public= real teams out of the box
Non licensed = not a great seller
Yes, those things have users and an audience, but nowhere near the scale to justify an independent video game development.
# 98
Hollywoods_Finest @ 12/27/10 06:57 PM
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
All failed in this area along with lack of full customization for gamers to tweak.
You won't hear complaints about an NFL package on Backbreaker, because gamers were able to create NFL teams with the editor. It wasn't a lack of NFL brand on their game, it was the gimmicky presentation and the various gameplay issues that plagued the game.
All-Pro 2k8 suffered because there was no Franchise and editing features were very limited. Gamers got what the Dev's put out and that was it. Gameplay wise, they were on the right road. Again, the Legends path was gimmicky and had no replay value from the beginning, plain and simple.
It was a quick play mode sold as the full game.
I would say this argument holds true for Casual gamers, not the Hardcore base that's on these forums months after the release testing/tweaking and exchanging ideas daily to improve the game's football experience.
**I would say more time is spent tweaking than actually playing the game!!!
Post A Comment
Working...