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
|
|||||||||||||
|
In your next paragraph, why should the NFL care if Madden sales go up or down. They have their money upfront.
It's similar to the satellite deal. Why should the NFL care if DirectTV goes up or down in football subscriptions each year? They have their money.
|
|||||||||||||
|
Again, this may change in the very near future.
|
|||||||||||||
|
The one, and most important, number that you left out is the number of copies that Backbreaker sold. 70k if I'm not mistaken. They made so little that they couldn't even afford to put out a patch to fix a horribly broken run game.
I love Backbreaker as a concept, and really enjoy, or should I say enjoyed it, until the running game was broken, but the proof is out there that the public, en masse, will not support a non licensed sports game.
Only1LT - you're not getting my point, there can never be a monopoly on a private copyrighted product such as the NFL brand. Anyone's entitled to make a football game but the NFL controls the brand. A monopoly is not ever applicable to a brand like the NFL due to the nature of it not being deemed a public goods or service used by the public sector (unlike say wood, gas, oxygen, gasoline, the radio or tv airwaves, etc).
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
They did, and that patch broke the running game. They wanted to do another patch to fix what the last patch did, but couldn't because 505 Games dropped them faster than if Natural Motion changed their name to Glass Jaw lol.
|
|||||||||||||
|
The NFL, and other sports entities have been afforded anti-trust exemption status. That status could potentially be revoked in the sense that they may not be allowed to behave as one entity any longer. That is the crux of the American Needle case.
That's what I am referring to. While they are free to market their brand to whomever they choose, they may not be able to do so, unilaterally, for every team.
Now if the Supreme Court ruling is upheld, that doesn't mean that the NFL can't still do exclusive deals, if all the 32 teams collude to do so, but you made mention, in several posts, that the NFL is acting as one entity. I was just interjecting that this may not always be the case.
Only1,
My counter was to MoutonDocile's response that full customization is not enough for a game to sell well without the NFL (or College) package attached to it.
I was pointing out how a game with full customization does not need an NFL/NCAA package on top of it to sell, because gamers would utilize the open editor to create an NFL/College structure with it's necessary teams.
It's not that a football game can't be made with these Exclusive Contracts, it's the notion that a game would not sell well if it doesn't come pre-packaged with the brand.
Those other games failed, not because the NFL brand was not on it, but because of the gimmicky marketing attempts versus producing the best gameplay with generic presentation and open customization.
I reference that it is the Casual Gamer that needs/want the brand name attached to it, because the Hardcore gamer will edit/customize the game into what he wants anyway if given the options.
I've always wanted to see what a 2k College football game would look/play like on Next-Gen consoles.
2k8 Football, Backbreaker and Black College Football showed that it's not about another football game being put out on the market, so this case is much deeper than what we may perceive.
My counter was to MoutonDocile's response that full customization is not enough for a game to sell well without the NFL (or College) package attached to it.
I was pointing out how a game with full customization does not need an NFL/NCAA package on top of it to sell, because gamers would utilize the open editor to create an NFL/College structure with it's necessary teams.
It's not that a football game can't be made with these Exclusive Contracts, it's the notion that a game would not sell well if it doesn't come pre-packaged with the brand.
Those other games failed, not because the NFL brand was not on it, but because of the gimmicky marketing attempts versus producing the best gameplay with generic presentation and open customization.
I reference that it is the Casual Gamer that needs/want the brand name attached to it, because the Hardcore gamer will edit/customize the game into what he wants anyway if given the options.
I've always wanted to see what a 2k College football game would look/play like on Next-Gen consoles.
2k8 Football, Backbreaker and Black College Football showed that it's not about another football game being put out on the market, so this case is much deeper than what we may perceive.
# 109
Gotmadskillzson @ 12/28/10 05:40 PM
I am amazed there is a thread about this and:
1. It is still open and not locked
2. Nobody has been banned in this thread
1. It is still open and not locked
2. Nobody has been banned in this thread
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
So your point is that if a game, that is unlicensed, was actually very well done, that it would sell. Ok. I'll buy that theory. Here is the problem though. At this point, it's just a theory. It has never been done before, so saying that it would sell is just a guess.
Here's what we do know. Every unlicensed sports game that has tried to take on the licensed ones, has failed. Miserably! APF 2K8, which many, myself included, consider the best playing Football game ever, only sold a few 100k copies. Backbreaker was an abject failure in the sales department (how they got the green light to make another sports game is beyond me, but I guess we'll see if this Hockey game ever comes out). I'm scared to even look up what Black College did lol (who?).
You say that casuals need the license, while the hard core don't. That may be true, but unfortunately for those that are interested in making an unlicensed game, there are TONS more casuals than there are hardcore gamers.
Now, I hear what you are saying. All of the unlicensed games that have come out, and subsequently, didn't do well in sales, had more knocks against them besides the fact that they were unlicensed. I can go with you a little on that one, but until somebody, anybody, creates an unlicensed Football game that is a commercial success, I'm going to have to go with conventional wisdom and say that unlicensed sports games, especially NFL ones, will not sell, because until it happens, the burden of proof is squarely on their side.
And forgive me for not being PC, but we live in a very... stoopid society. One where name brands are almost always thought of as being better, just because they are a name brand. To overcome this mentality is not very easy, and it should not be taken lightly.
|
|||||||||||||
|
So do most people, that's why they edit rosters. I'm not so free on my time, that I can do it all myself. I'll take a passable m11 over a perfect apf any day.
|
|||||||||||||
|
Are you sure about that lol? Kidding.
All I mean is that the mentality, in general, not specific to Football games, of name brands being better just because they are name brands, is stupid, and that plays a factor in people's purchases, including Madden.
It could even be a licensed Football game, but it would still have a hard time competing with Madden, because of its brand recognition. Take away the license, and you can just about turn the lights out lol.
You are basing your entire logic on the decision of the American Needle case, a case in which even that court admitted the NFL could engage in some licensing as a single entity (***This is not a total loss for the NFL because the opinion says the League may engage in some activities as a single entity and disputes over those actions need to be judged on a case-by-case basis but "the activity at issue in this case is still concerted activity covered for [Sherman Antitrust Act] purposes.").
http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2...trust-dispute/
In the case of the NFL and EA it's mere semantics in regards to the agreement. It's seriously doubtful any team in the NFL would wish to be left out of the videogame and thus give up the marketing share. To bypass this aspect of the law EA and the NFL would only have to throw out the current agreement and put in place the same agreement as negotiated by all 32 teams individually instead of as a collective whole. That is if this particular agreement would even be found to be null and void which it has not, as of yet, been found to be..
http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2...trust-dispute/
In the case of the NFL and EA it's mere semantics in regards to the agreement. It's seriously doubtful any team in the NFL would wish to be left out of the videogame and thus give up the marketing share. To bypass this aspect of the law EA and the NFL would only have to throw out the current agreement and put in place the same agreement as negotiated by all 32 teams individually instead of as a collective whole. That is if this particular agreement would even be found to be null and void which it has not, as of yet, been found to be..
Oh and just a note as well, the American Needle case applied specifically to that case and the NFL moving forward in how it does business. It did not strike down all in-place NFL contracts and agreements. That means that the current agreement is still legal and valid until a court says otherwise.
The real problem is GameStop, as always. The whole online pass mess was an attempt to stop GameStop from selling used copies. It didn't work.
LiquorLogic - I agree that it does mean its very slightly less likely that they will renew it (combined with the fact that the money the NFL would want to renew it is going to be off the charts), however it really doesn't add much work to renewing it if they really want, they simply have to go to the teams and ask them do they want to be in the videogame or not. I doubt any team is going to say no. Personally I hope they don't renew it.
P.S. - I still disagree with the whole "NFL and EA" conspired to eliminate competition. To conspire it takes more than one party and the NFL is allowed legally to sell its trademark to whoever it wants to market it, there is no conspiracy on there part to eliminate competition, they are the deciders of what to do with the brand.
P.S. - I still disagree with the whole "NFL and EA" conspired to eliminate competition. To conspire it takes more than one party and the NFL is allowed legally to sell its trademark to whoever it wants to market it, there is no conspiracy on there part to eliminate competition, they are the deciders of what to do with the brand.
LiquorLogic - the NFL is a shield under which all of the teams fall. This recent decision does not change that, it only mandates that the teams themselves must negotiate contracts like the EA one. It's really semantics going forward because the teams will still be splitting revenue equally per their internal agreements on contracts like the EA Madden one so it's not as if the Cowboys can ask for 11 million dollars to be in Madden whereas the Cardinals are only going to be able to get 8 million dollars to appear in the game. The only aspect to negotiating with the teams individually vs. doing so in regards to negotiating with the NFL will be to negotiate if a team does not wish to participate in the contract or if they do. And as I said before, what team owner is going to keep their team out of Madden or contracts like it? And of course there will be other contracts on individual team basis which will continue to operate the way they do now (i.e Dallas Cowboys signing contracts with Nike, whereas other teams go with Reeboks, etc).
Again, it may seem like a huge decision, the American Needle case, but it really is more about the methodology of the contract negotiation for the types of contracts that involve all of the teams, such as DirecTV Sunday Ticket and Madden than anything else. Those sorts of contracts will ALWAYS be based on evenly split revenue sharing so the only aspect of negotiating for the individual teams is going to be opting in or opting out and you will never see any teams opting out of those sorts of contracts. It's not really going to change the way the NFL does business and it's not going to create any different business practices for the most part IMO.
Again, it may seem like a huge decision, the American Needle case, but it really is more about the methodology of the contract negotiation for the types of contracts that involve all of the teams, such as DirecTV Sunday Ticket and Madden than anything else. Those sorts of contracts will ALWAYS be based on evenly split revenue sharing so the only aspect of negotiating for the individual teams is going to be opting in or opting out and you will never see any teams opting out of those sorts of contracts. It's not really going to change the way the NFL does business and it's not going to create any different business practices for the most part IMO.
Yeah for something like team shirts, caps or something then as I said, stuff like that will continue to be more about the individual teams. But for contracts on a single entity sold in all markets, such as a DirecTV package or a Madden football game those will not change how they're locked up, other than the semantics of how the deal is done so as to comply by the most recent court decision as I explained in my last post.
Post A Comment
Working...