Support NeoGAF

[ag-my001]

The plaintiffs will argue that due to the popularity of the NFL brand, publishers don't need to charge $60 to guarantee profitability. The built-in fan base for such games mean that they can be sold at a lower price, and they'll cite the 2005 price war to back it up.

EA will say that $60 is the industry standard, that they only have rights to the NFL/NCAA/AFL brands and not exclusive rights to make a football game (citing that All-Pro game that came out a few years ago), and that the money earned off of Madden goes to fund many smaller projects with a higher risk of failure.

I'm guessing EA wins.

 

[Lkr]

does this mean we can sue Apple because they won't release OS X for any other system but their own, which are overpriced?
Lawsuits like this are so fucking stupid. If you didn't want to pay for Madden, you didn't have to buy it, that simple. It was $50 at launch on the last gen, just like every game. This gen it is $60 at launch, just like every game(even the sports games 2k makes). I can't believe I'm defending EA, but this is just stupid.
The NBA is also very popular, but that doesn't stop 2k from releasing their games at $60 and NBA Live(when it existed) at $60

 

[expy]

Should do the same with the NHL franchise...

 

[LQX]

Should do the same with the NHL franchise...

I'm pretty sure EA doesn't have exclusivity on NHL.

 

[graywolf323]

all this proves is America is in serious need of tort reform

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

Any football game fan should be praying that this lawsuit goes through and the ruling allows any other company to make NFL football games. Whether you think the old 2k football games were any good or not, one thing is blatantly obvious, and that's is that the competition drove EA to make their best football games in their history. I don't think many people would argue against Madden 2004-2007 on the last gen systems being some of the most balanced, well designed football EA has ever made. And then you look at this generation and EA just doesn't give a shit. We are six games into Madden next gen and are still waiting for a game anywhere close to the quality they were consistently putting out last gen when they had competition.

And the lawsuit has nothing to do with the fact that EA has an exclusive license so whether or not the NFL shopped it around or EA went to them is irrelevant. The lawsuit is about potential price gouging they have acted on as a result of their exclusive license. If you look back to the last time EA had competition in the NFL market, 2k released their game for $20 compared to EA's $50. But the most telling thing imho was what happened only a month or so later. As 2k's $20 title sold very well and moved a lot of units, you started seeing EA's title for $30 virtually everywhere. Compare that to today where they have no competition, four months after release their title still sits at $60. In two more months it will still be $60. In March or April it might drop to $40. That is compared to $30 only a month after release the last time they had competition. Maybe that is where the price gouging argument is coming from.

The again maybe it's also this:
http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/Product/Madden-NFL-11/66acd000-77fe-1000-9115-d802454108fe

Fucking sickening :lol

Maybe it's EA now charging for access to online features they never charged for before, like online franchise. When that was in the PC version they never charged for it.

Also, do people here actually buy that the NFL shopped that license around and EA was just innocent in the whole process? If the NFL wanted to shop that license around, why would they go to anyone BUT EA? Who was going to outbid EA back then? That would have been a waste of time. The most plausible scenario is EA hated having to sell their product for $30 so early in the NFL season and also hated the market share 2k was gaining and decided the easiest way to keep Madden on top was to eliminate competition. Which was a shame because as a huge Madden fan, that's when the games were the best.

 

[bluehat9]

I clicked the link at the end of the quote, and apparently the original allegations (from 2008) say that

The agreements resulted in the company's flagship product, Madden NFL, to increase 70 percent from $29.99 to $49.99, the suit states.

When was Madden sold for $30? (edit: thanks to the post above for telling me when).

And they're not suing the NFL because this is about EA acquiring all major football licenses' exclusivity, so the monopolization of videogame football is the issue. Is that right?

 

[Lkr]

Any football game fan should be praying that this lawsuit goes through and the ruling allows any other company to make NFL football games. Whether you think the old 2k football games were any good or not, one thing is blatantly obvious, and that's is that the competition drove EA to make their best football games in their history. I don't think many people would argue against Madden 2004-2007 on the last gen systems being some of the most balanced, well designed football EA has ever made. And then you look at this generation and EA just doesn't give a shit. We are six games into Madden next gen and are still waiting for a game anywhere close to the quality they were consistently putting out last gen when they had competition.

And the lawsuit has nothing to do with the fact that EA has an exclusive license so whether or not the NFL shopped it around or EA went to them is irrelevant. The lawsuit is about potential price gouging they have acted on as a result of their exclusive license. If you look back to the last time EA had competition in the NFL market, 2k released their game for $20 compared to EA's $50. But the most telling thing imho was what happened only a month or so later. As 2k's $20 title sold very well and moved a lot of units, you started seeing EA's title for $30 virtually everywhere. Compare that to today where they have no competition, four months after release their title still sits at $60. In two more months it will still be $60. In March or April it might drop to $40. That is compared to $30 only a month after release the last time they had competition. Maybe that is where the price gouging argument is coming from.

The again maybe it's also this:
http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/Product/Madden-NFL-11/66acd000-77fe-1000-9115-d802454108fe

Fucking sickening :lol

Maybe it's EA now charging for access to online features they never charged for before, like online franchise. When that was in the PC version they never charged for it.

Also, do people here actually buy that the NFL shopped that license around and EA was just innocent in the whole process? If the NFL wanted to shop that license around, why would they go to anyone BUT EA? Who was going to outbid EA back then? That would have been a waste of time. The most plausible scenario is EA hated having to sell their product for $30 so early in the NFL season and also hated the market share 2k was gaining and decided the easiest way to keep Madden on top was to eliminate competition. Which was a shame because as a huge Madden fan, that's when the games were the best.

To be fair, online franchise is free for anyone who buys the game new. It only fucks over people that buy it used, rent it, or borrow it from a friend/family member.

 

[Philthy]

I'm guessing this will go like it did with NFL apparel earlier this year. Supreme Court said the NFL cannot exist as a single entity when making deals, they must be considered as 32 separate teams, and they must all be licensed independently from each other. NFL2K will probably loose like this case, but it will force the NFL going forward to make sure each team decides which game publishers get to use who ever they want without them all teaming up into one single entity. Which in turn will probably mean the NFL will allow multiple games back out on the streets because it would basically make gaming useless "NFL Packers vs Vikings 2011".. etc.

 

[Coins]

Im confused. EA's exclusivity doesnt stop other companies from making football games. It stops them from using the NFL brand. I dont really see anything wrong with that.

This would be like Coke saying, "We want a videogame made with our brand" and giving it to Blizzard and then someone suing Blizzard.

Am I right?

 

[Zeliard]

Im confused. EA's exclusivity doesnt stop other companies from making football games. It stops them from using the NFL brand. I dont really see anything wrong with that.

This would be like Coke saying, "We want a videogame made with our brand" and giving it to Blizzard and then someone suing Blizzard.

Am I right?

The problem is that if you're going to make an American football game without the NFL/NCAA license, you're essentially fucked. It's useless to even attempt it, like releasing an X-rated movie you want to make money. In this country, the NFL/NCAA and football are essentially synonymous.

I don't know about the legality of the matter, but it certainly is unfortunate, both for gamers and other companies.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

Any football game fan should be praying that this lawsuit goes through and the ruling allows any other company to make NFL football games. Whether you think the old 2k football games were any good or not, one thing is blatantly obvious, and that's is that the competition drove EA to make their best football games in their history. I don't think many people would argue against Madden 2004-2007 on the last gen systems being some of the most balanced, well designed football EA has ever made. And then you look at this generation and EA just doesn't give a shit. We are six games into Madden next gen and are still waiting for a game anywhere close to the quality they were consistently putting out last gen when they had competition.

And the lawsuit has nothing to do with the fact that EA has an exclusive license so whether or not the NFL shopped it around or EA went to them is irrelevant. The lawsuit is about potential price gouging they have acted on as a result of their exclusive license. If you look back to the last time EA had competition in the NFL market, 2k released their game for $20 compared to EA's $50. But the most telling thing imho was what happened only a month or so later. As 2k's $20 title sold very well and moved a lot of units, you started seeing EA's title for $30 virtually everywhere. Compare that to today where they have no competition, four months after release their title still sits at $60. In two more months it will still be $60. In March or April it might drop to $40. That is compared to $30 only a month after release the last time they had competition. Maybe that is where the price gouging argument is coming from.

The again maybe it's also this:
http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/Product/Madden-NFL-11/66acd000-77fe-1000-9115-d802454108fe

Fucking sickening :lol

Maybe it's EA now charging for access to online features they never charged for before, like online franchise. When that was in the PC version they never charged for it.

Also, do people here actually buy that the NFL shopped that license around and EA was just innocent in the whole process? If the NFL wanted to shop that license around, why would they go to anyone BUT EA? Who was going to outbid EA back then? That would have been a waste of time. The most plausible scenario is EA hated having to sell their product for $30 so early in the NFL season and also hated the market share 2k was gaining and decided the easiest way to keep Madden on top was to eliminate competition. Which was a shame because as a huge Madden fan, that's when the games were the best.

so why does this stop at the NFL? Why is THQ allowed to be the sole maker of WWE and UFC videogames? How about Activision with Spiderman? Hey why doesn't Guitar Hero get to make a Beatles game?!? Every other fucking license in videogames is exclusive, why is the EA/NFL deal always singled out? People need to put aside their Madden/EA hate and think sensibly.

 

[Xenon]

So does anyone really think EA and the NFL reps didn't talk about exclusive rights before the NFL auctioned them off? Also I’m wondering if there are any details of the other bids and the amount. I can’t think of many publishers out there that could have forked over that amount of cash…at the time anyway. This thing screams backdoor dealing with a nice front to make it look legit.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

So does anyone really think EA and the NFL reps didn't talk about exclusive rights before the NFL auctioned them off? Also I’m wondering if there are any details of the other bids and the amount. I can’t think of many publishers out there that could have forked over that amount of cash…at the time anyway. This thing screams backdoor dealing with a nice front to make it look legit.

NFL loves exclusive deals. They have the same thing going with DirecTV and Reebok. They are always up for the highest bidder.

 

[stonedwal]

It's a shame that we will never get back to the days of competition in the sports genre that we saw in the late 90s. Sure, Quarterback Club and GameDay weren't good near the end, but they both had years were they were seen as the superior option on the market. Even if the exclusivity was eliminated, the sheer cost of development makes it difficult for new competitors to enter the market.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

Any football game fan should be praying that this lawsuit goes through and the ruling allows any other company to make NFL football games. Whether you think the old 2k football games were any good or not, one thing is blatantly obvious, and that's is that the competition drove EA to make their best football games in their history. I don't think many people would argue against Madden 2004-2007 on the last gen systems being some of the most balanced, well designed football EA has ever made. And then you look at this generation and EA just doesn't give a shit. We are six games into Madden next gen and are still waiting for a game anywhere close to the quality they were consistently putting out last gen when they had competition.

And the lawsuit has nothing to do with the fact that EA has an exclusive license so whether or not the NFL shopped it around or EA went to them is irrelevant. The lawsuit is about potential price gouging they have acted on as a result of their exclusive license. If you look back to the last time EA had competition in the NFL market, 2k released their game for $20 compared to EA's $50. But the most telling thing imho was what happened only a month or so later. As 2k's $20 title sold very well and moved a lot of units, you started seeing EA's title for $30 virtually everywhere. Compare that to today where they have no competition, four months after release their title still sits at $60. In two more months it will still be $60. In March or April it might drop to $40. That is compared to $30 only a month after release the last time they had competition. Maybe that is where the price gouging argument is coming from.

The again maybe it's also this:
http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/Product/Madden-NFL-11/66acd000-77fe-1000-9115-d802454108fe

Fucking sickening :lol

Maybe it's EA now charging for access to online features they never charged for before, like online franchise. When that was in the PC version they never charged for it.

Also, do people here actually buy that the NFL shopped that license around and EA was just innocent in the whole process? If the NFL wanted to shop that license around, why would they go to anyone BUT EA? Who was going to outbid EA back then? That would have been a waste of time. The most plausible scenario is EA hated having to sell their product for $30 so early in the NFL season and also hated the market share 2k was gaining and decided the easiest way to keep Madden on top was to eliminate competition. Which was a shame because as a huge Madden fan, that's when the games were the best.

You can't sue EA for not price collapsing their merchandise in stores. :lol

This lawsuit has no merit. Nor does your fabrication about evil EA forcing the NFL into an exclusivity deal, everyone involved (2k included) has indicated that this was the NFL's choice.

 

[Haunted]

so why does this stop at the NFL? Why is THQ allowed to be the sole maker of WWE and UFC videogames? How about Activision with Spiderman? Hey why doesn't Guitar Hero get to make a Beatles game?!? Every other fucking license in videogames is exclusive, why is the EA/NFL deal always singled out? People need to put aside their Madden/EA hate and think sensibly.

Are you implying that the judge who certified this suit is a Madden hater? Maybe even a closet 2K fanboi?


That said, I think the FIFA license deals should be getting similar treatment. That said, this suit has no fucking chance. It might be shitty for us gamers, some might even call all this exclusive license business unethical, but it's not illegal.

 

[HAL_Laboratory]

It's price gouging because EA keeps packaging the same game with a modern price tag. Blame it on consumers if you like, but EA is marketing each Madden like an all-new experience while delivering an arguably regressive product. Just because they can. Pretty shitty business model if you ask me.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

It's price gouging because EA keeps packaging the same game with a modern price tag. Blame it on consumers if you like, but EA is marketing each Madden like an all-new experience while delivering an arguably regressive product. Just because they can. Pretty shitty business model if you ask me.

So lets get a class action going against Koei for the Dynasty Warrior games! And against every other company that makes sports games!

 

[Stumpokapow]

I'll echo everyone else. It sucks, but it's not illegal.

On the basis that price gouging ought not be illegal, or on the basis that EA doesn't commit price gouging?

 

[markot]

Wait.... It doesnt have a monopoly on football... it has the rights to NFL.

Thats like suing the NFL for not letting others use the NFL license and names, for not letting another football league call itself the NFL.

This is ridiculous. I assume they are going to sue codemasters for having the F1 license? Sue Nintendo for having Mario.

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

I'm pretty sure EA doesn't have exclusivity on NHL.

They don't, I have no idea what Expy is talking about.

 

[Tamanon]

I don't get it, they don't charge more than other games. There doesn't seem to be any price-gouging at all.

Plus, why wouldn't they sue the NFL instead, but that seems silly too. Seems like a perfectly valid and legal contract.

 

[Metalmurphy]

For a moment there I thought this was about actual football and not handegg.

*phew*

Don't mess with my FIFA!

 

[markot]

Exactly, if they are going to sue anyone, it should be the NFL for selling the rights and exclusivity and restricting usage, not EA for buying them >_<

 

[steadfast]

On the basis that price gouging ought not be illegal, or on the basis that EA doesn't commit price gouging?

Video games, being a luxury item, do not fall under price gouging laws. Only items that directly affect sustaining life and property are covered: Water, food, gas, etc.

The judge just basically said "fuck it, let a jury decide"

 

[Ninja Scooter]

On the basis that price gouging ought not be illegal, or on the basis that EA doesn't commit price gouging?

I think that the problem in this thread is that some people think "a company I don't like (for some stupidass reason) charging me full price for a game I don't like=price gouging".

 

[xTOOLx]

so why does this stop at the NFL? Why is THQ allowed to be the sole maker of WWE and UFC videogames? How about Activision with Spiderman? Hey why doesn't Guitar Hero get to make a Beatles game?!? Every other fucking license in videogames is exclusive, why is the EA/NFL deal always singled out? People need to put aside their Madden/EA hate and think sensibly.

because THQ's WWE games aren't the only wrestling games on the market and their UFC games aren't the only MMA games on the market.

EA has a monopoly on all of American football with the exception of high school ball I guess. The Beatles just licensed out their music to Rock Band exclusively. Obviously Guitar Hero is not the only music game out there right now.

 

[markot]

because THQ's WWE games aren't the only wrestling games on the market and their UFC games aren't the only MMA games on the market.

EA has a monopoly on all of American football with the exception of high school ball I guess. The Beatles just licensed out their music to Rock Band exclusively. Obviously Guitar Hero is not the only music game out there right now.

It doesnt have a monopoly on football, just the leagues/names which were sold to them by the leagues.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

because THQ's WWE games aren't the only wrestling games on the market and their UFC games aren't the only MMA games on the market.

EA has a monopoly on all of American football with the exception of high school ball I guess. The Beatles just licensed out their music to Rock Band exclusively. Obviously Guitar Hero is not the only music game out there right now.

How in this equation is WWE/UFC not the same as NFL? WWE:NFL::wrestling:football.

Yes, it's probably a lot easier to create an unlicensed wrestling or MMA game than it is an unlicensed football game, but a lot of that is to EA's credit. They turned the "Madden NFL" brand into a viable videogame brand, just like Mario or Zelda or Call of Duty over the course of the last 20 years. You can't now fault them for that.

 

[Tamanon]

because THQ's WWE games aren't the only wrestling games on the market and their UFC games aren't the only MMA games on the market.

EA has a monopoly on all of American football with the exception of high school ball I guess. The Beatles just licensed out their music to Rock Band exclusively. Obviously Guitar Hero is not the only music game out there right now.

But.....there are other football games on the market, they just don't sell or aren't good enough.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

But.....there are other football games on the market, they just don't sell or aren't good enough.

the funny thing is that in the last few years there's probably been more unlicensed Football games (Blitz 2, Backbreaker, All Pro) than unlicensed pro wrestling games (TNA? What else?)

 

[Xenon]

NFL loves exclusive deals. They have the same thing going with DirecTV and Reebok. They are always up for the highest bidder.

Ok, it still is pretty fishy that the year that EA's domination of the football gaming started showing some cracks, the NFL decided to approach EA. Also it was for an amount that was well over what any other competitor would pay. Now this could have be just a shrewd business move by the NFL seeing a great opportunity to get the most out of EA. Or maybe it was, as I mentioned before, the possibility that EA could have gotten these talks started but could never go public with that since it would set them up for a monopoly suit, given the fact there were already established competitors in the NFL gaming market.

 

[speculawyer]

This can potentially set a precedent for distribution of goods and services through exclusive dealers, liberal SF court bullshit aside, the NFL will ultimately win this. NFL is basically a brand, the brand belongs to the league, it would be like forcing McDonald's to allow their fastfood to be sold at restaurants other than their own, there's no monopoly on football, if someone wants to make a football game not featuring the NFL license and players, they certainly can and it's been done, it's a ridiculous lawsuit.

This is not about Canadian football, OK? The NFL isn't even a party the suit and some 'liberal SF court' has nothing to do with it except as a way for you to inject your nutty politics into the matter.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

Ok, it still is pretty fishy that the year that EA's domination of the football gaming started showing some cracks, the NFL decided to approach EA. Also it was for an amount that was well over what any other competitor would pay. Now this could have be just a shrewd business move by the NFL seeing a great opportunity to get the most out of EA. Or maybe it was, as I mentioned before, the possibility that EA could have gotten these talks started but could never go public with that since it would set them up for a monopoly suit, given the fact there were already established competitors in the NFL gaming market.

how was it showing cracks? 2K had to knock their game down to $20 and were still being outsold handily. And by some accounts the NFL did not like 2K selling their game at a discounted price, which might have spurred them to look for an exclusive deal in the first place.

 

[Xenon]

how was it showing cracks? 2K had to knock their game down to $20 and were still being outsold handily. And by some accounts the NFL did not like 2K selling their game at a discounted price, which might have spurred them to look for an exclusive deal in the first place.

EA had to lower their price, which was huge.

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

How in this equation is WWE/UFC not the same as NFL? WWE:NFL::wrestling:football.

Yes, it's probably a lot easier to create an unlicensed wrestling or MMA game than it is an unlicensed football game, but a lot of that is to EA's credit. They turned the "Madden NFL" brand into a viable videogame brand, just like Mario or Zelda or Call of Duty over the course of the last 20 years. You can't now fault them for that.

You can fault them for the NCAA though.

It's not the NFL in and of itself. It's the NFL, along with the AFL, and NCAA football. If you want any football licensed game you must buy an EA product, no matter the delivery service.

Mario/Zelda/Call of Duty are horrible comparisons. They are all original IPs. EA didn't create football, yet they control practically any and everything that happens with it in the video game space.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

You can fault them for the NCAA though.

It's not the NFL in and of itself. It's the NFL, along with the AFL, and NCAA football. If you want any football licensed game you must buy an EA product, no matter the delivery service.

Mario/Zelda/Call of Duty are horrible comparisons. They are all original IPs. EA didn't create football, yet they control practically any and everything that happens with it in the video game space.

No they are not horrible comparisons because they are IPs, just like the NFL. Nintendo can do whatever they want with their IP, so why can't the NFL? Should a court force Nintendo to make a Mario game on Xbox because it's not fair that the Wii has a monopoly on platformers?

 

[markot]

You can fault them for the NCAA though.

It's not the NFL in and of itself. It's the NFL, along with the AFL, and NCAA football. If you want any football licensed game you must buy an EA product, no matter the delivery service.

Mario/Zelda/Call of Duty are horrible comparisons. They are all original IPs. EA didn't create football, yet they control practically any and everything that happens with it in the video game space.

The NFL isnt football, it is a league and has the rights to itself, images, likeness, players, teams...etc... Football =/= NFL. If NFL had the rights to all football in the USA, then fair enough, hell that would be illegal, but they dont, they are just a league that are able to sell and restrict useage/viewership and whatever they want to make money from their league.

 

[DMczaf]

No they are not horrible comparisons because they are IPs, just like the NFL. Nintendo can do whatever they want with their IP, so why can't the NFL? Should a court force Nintendo to make a Mario game on Xbox because it's not fair that the Wii has a monopoly on platformers?

When are we coming back from vacation to finish work on Fassel UFL 2012?

I have Dominic Rhodes and Maurice Clarett coming in for motion capture next week.

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

No they are not horrible comparisons because they are IPs, just like the NFL. Nintendo can do whatever they want with their IP, so why can't the NFL? Should a court force Nintendo to make a Mario game on Xbox because it's not fair that the Wii has a monopoly on platformers?

The NFL can do whatever it wants with its IP; never said it didn't.

My posts focuses on Electronic Arts and the fact that they control all licensed football properties, not just the NFL.

To put it another way, if EA didn't also control NCAA football (which isn't owned by the NFL) this wouldn't be as much of a problem.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

The NFL can do whatever it wants with its IP; never said it didn't.

My posts focuses on Electronic Arts and the fact that they control all licensed football properties, not just the NFL.

To put it another way, if EA didn't also control NCAA football (which isn't owned by the NFL) this wouldn't be as much of a problem.

they don't control all the football properties anymore than THQ controls all the wrestling properties. There is the UFL, there is the fucking lingerie football league, women's football league. Yes they all suck and aren't worth a shit but since when is that the NFL or EA's problem? Why are they at fault for creating such a popular, well known "Madden NFL" IP that is synonymous with video game football?

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

they don't control all the football properties anymore than THQ controls all the wrestling properties. There is the UFL, there is the fucking lingerie football league, women's football league. Yes they all suck and aren't worth a shit but since when is that the NFL or EA's problem? Why are they at fault for creating such a popular, well known "Madden NFL" IP that is synonymous with video game football?

C'mon Scooter, Lingerie football league?

We have to consider the idea of competition. To wit: This August EA Releases Madden '12 and the competition releases your lingerie game or even a UFL game. How likely are consumers to pick up the Lingerie game in lieu of Madden? It's as much competition as me selling lemonade on the corner is competition to Madden.

That's the complaint. Gamers want the NFL, the NCAA, and that's it. Nothing else can be considered competition. The UFL isn't competition. All Pro 2K8 or whatever wasn't competition. EA has effectively monopolized the football market: Anything not officially licensed by either authority is doomed to failure, and EA has control of both. That's a Monopoly. The fact the the NFL handed them said monopoly will make no difference.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

so why does this stop at the NFL? Why is THQ allowed to be the sole maker of WWE and UFC videogames? How about Activision with Spiderman? Hey why doesn't Guitar Hero get to make a Beatles game?!? Every other fucking license in videogames is exclusive, why is the EA/NFL deal always singled out? People need to put aside their Madden/EA hate and think sensibly.

Maybe you missed the part where I said I am a Madden fan and wish the franchise would return to its former glory, which was at a time when there was some competition. And I mean actual competition, not some Blitz bullshit or All-Pro Retired Players and Fake Teams bullshit. Again, any gamer who actually enjoys football should be praying for the day when EA's monopoly on NFL football ends because then we can get back to having great NFL video games. If you are a fan of football games and aren't eager for this deal to end then you're just a sad EA apologist, nothing more.

But the lawsuit isn't revolving around EA and the NFL having an exclusive license, the lawsuit is around price gouging. Last time EA had NFL competition they were selling their game at $30 to help steer people away from buying 2k. They have a legitimate claim that EA's hold on the market has allowed them to overcharge customers and history proves that.

 

[Stumpokapow]

Just shut the fuck up Kittonwy. This is not about Canadian football, OK? The NFL isn't even a party the suit and some 'liberal SF court' has nothing to do with it except as a way for you to inject your nutty politics into the matter.

Stop being rude to other users. You really couldn't have posted "Why bring in nutty partisan politics into this thread?" without swearing at him and insulting his nationality? You were so incapable of doing so that even though you went back and edited your post, you couldn't remove the insults? You're not an idiot, and many of your posts are insightful, you just have terrible self control.

I hate doing a public warning like this, but you are the #1 most banned poster on GAF. Almost every ban is for losing your shit and being rude or condescending to others. Next personal insult directed from you to literally any poster on GAF no matter what they say to you or how bad their record is or how dumb their post is, it's a perm.

This can potentially set a precedent for distribution of goods and services through exclusive dealers, liberal SF court bullshit aside

You really needed to insult those wacky liberals? You were incapable of making your point without doing so? The fact that this was San Francisco and that they're liberal, even though the judge is a Republican appointee who has rejected antitrust suits by the Department of Justice against Oracle and against Hearst Corporation over their takeover of the SF Chronicle, even though the justice in question is in the process of retiring and has no political need to score points, and even though this is a preliminary ruling for the case to proceed and not a ruling on the merits?

You really, truly, sincerely, and in good faith, thought you were adding to conversation with that?

I'll take your word for it.

 

[Ponn]

"forced"? Who the hell is forced to buy anything, especially Madden. Acting like its fucking insulin or electricity. NFL has a monopoly on, well NFL. It's not a public owned entity, it's a business that sells the usage of its likeness. They can choose to whom and how they sell that likeness as they please. This is a very stupid lawsuit that will only ever benefit the lawyers involved.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

C'mon Scooter, Lingerie football league?

We have to consider the idea of competition. To wit: This August EA Releases Madden '12 and the competition releases your lingerie game or even a UFL game. How likely are consumers to pick up the Lingerie game in lieu of Madden? It's as much competition as me selling lemonade on the corner is competition to Madden.

That's the complaint. Gamers want the NFL, the NCAA, and that's it. Nothing else can be considered competition. The UFL isn't competition. All Pro 2K8 or whatever wasn't competition. EA has effectively monopolized the football market: Anything not officially licensed by either authority is doomed to failure, and EA has control of both. That's a Monopoly. The fact the the NFL handed them said monopoly will make no difference.

the NFL and EA have created that demand, so now they have to suffer because of it? They turned the "NFL" and "Madden" into huge brands, so much so that gamers and consumers will pass up other products to get the ones with those names. How is that wrong? Should they just get shittier at marketing to please their competitors?

 

[FLEABttn]

how was it showing cracks? 2K had to knock their game down to $20 and were still being outsold handily.

iirc 2K5 outsold Madden on Xbox that year.

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

the NFL and EA have created that demand, so now they have to suffer because of it? They turned the "NFL" and "Madden" into huge brands, so much so that gamers and consumers will pass up other products to get the ones with those names. How is that wrong? Should they just get shittier at marketing to please their competitors?

The NFL created the demand, and then gave it exclusively to EA. There was already monstrous demand for the NFL when multiple people had the license. In fact, it can be argued that in the long run exclusivity is doing more to HURT the NFL's video game brand than help it.

 

[speculawyer]

Stop being rude to other users. You really couldn't have posted "Why bring in nutty partisan politics into this thread?" without swearing at him and insulting his nationality? You were so incapable of doing so that even though you went back and edited your post, you couldn't remove the insults? You're not an idiot, and many of your posts are insightful, you just have terrible self control.

You are right . . . that was uncalled for and I apologize.