Next up on Joystiq: Valve reads anti-Left 4 Dead 2 petition, totally cancels it. At least the Madden guys have a fair argument, which GP lays out for you right here.
Next up on Joystiq: Valve reads anti-Left 4 Dead 2 petition, totally cancels it. At least the Madden guys have a fair argument, which GP lays out for you right here.
Reader Comments (61)
Posted: Jun 9th 2009 11:10AM Ridgecity said
Sadly, this is a deal done by the NFL, expec hese guys to fight EA and the NFL for this. But will probably win.
Posted: Jun 9th 2009 11:19AM Swizzler said
no, it was initiated by the NFL, EA has had to pay tremendous gobs of money to continue their domination. this would be like a company is asked by the NFL to make merch for the NFL mostly because they made the best stuff at the time, and are told they are going to be the exclusive dealer of this merch. the contract is say... for 3 years. after this 3 years the company asks to renew the contract, NOT THE NFL. The NFL is kinda iffy on the matter since dozens of others have asked for this same "exclusive" deal. so they offer to renew if they pay them this mountainous amount of money, expecting them to back out. But due to them making all this money by being the sole distributor of NFL merchandise they are able to make this payment. they continue to do this every time the contract renews.
^
if the above was true, this case would have already gone through the courts, the company would be found guilty, ect. but because its "newfangled" videogames, judges don't "get" that they're the same as any other product and need to be treated as such.
Reply
^
if the above was true, this case would have already gone through the courts, the company would be found guilty, ect. but because its "newfangled" videogames, judges don't "get" that they're the same as any other product and need to be treated as such.
Posted: Jun 9th 2009 1:14PM Ridgecity said
Did the NFL say "NO, we want games from many companies, may the best win" to EA?
The NFL cares about the money so gladly accepts whatever EA gives them, For Ea it's cheaper to buy such a deal because they don't need to invest in programmers since they just do little upgrade each year, adding stuff like "realistic crowds" "shinier helmets" "greener grass".
Of course the blame falls on gamers that are willing to buy the same crap each year, and give EA their massive pile of money. Gladly I don't like NFL but if I did I would hate to have multiple copies of the same game.
Reply
The NFL cares about the money so gladly accepts whatever EA gives them, For Ea it's cheaper to buy such a deal because they don't need to invest in programmers since they just do little upgrade each year, adding stuff like "realistic crowds" "shinier helmets" "greener grass".
Of course the blame falls on gamers that are willing to buy the same crap each year, and give EA their massive pile of money. Gladly I don't like NFL but if I did I would hate to have multiple copies of the same game.
Posted: Jun 9th 2009 11:14AM Cap Morgan said
This judge must be a gamer.
I know this has a snowballs chance, but I so want these guys to win.
I know this has a snowballs chance, but I so want these guys to win.
Posted: Jun 9th 2009 12:18PM OMGOMG said
I do, but at the same time, I don't think I'd go back to NFL 2K.
Besides the the NBA 2K series, 2K sports games have ranged from above-average to awful.
All-Pro Football 2K8 was a MASSIVE disappointment. I've been extremely impressed with EA Sports and the direction Peter Moore has taken them in.
Reply
Besides the the NBA 2K series, 2K sports games have ranged from above-average to awful.
All-Pro Football 2K8 was a MASSIVE disappointment. I've been extremely impressed with EA Sports and the direction Peter Moore has taken them in.
Posted: Jun 9th 2009 12:55PM Cap Morgan said
Maybe it's just nostalgia but I loved the direction they were going with 2k5.
Anyway even if the game is an epic fail, competition never hurts.
Reply
Anyway even if the game is an epic fail, competition never hurts.
Posted: Jun 10th 2009 12:22AM (Unverified) said
Well I agree that EA made a better game than All Pro, and they are getting better.
But remember EA took years to build that engine ect. 2k had like 9 months. Remember EA's first 2 next-gen games? Total shit.
I want this to end the monopoly, even though I would agree its not the governments right to end it. Not because I like 2k, I jsut think the extra competition would FORCE EA to make a better game. 2k5 was awesome and it forced Madden to make 05 one of the best Maddens ever.
Reply
But remember EA took years to build that engine ect. 2k had like 9 months. Remember EA's first 2 next-gen games? Total shit.
I want this to end the monopoly, even though I would agree its not the governments right to end it. Not because I like 2k, I jsut think the extra competition would FORCE EA to make a better game. 2k5 was awesome and it forced Madden to make 05 one of the best Maddens ever.
Posted: Jun 9th 2009 11:15AM 216 said
While I fully agree that EA has a monopoly on Football games, this is only because the NFL gave them rights to do so (by giving them the exclusivity contract)
These guys will get nowhere
These guys will get nowhere
Posted: Jun 9th 2009 11:19AM Sponge said
They don't have a monopoly on football games, for instance Tecmo just came out with a football game. EA just has a deal to use the real NFL names and likenesses. They should lose their lawsuit.
Also, who is suing and how does the deal affect them?.
Also, who is suing and how does the deal affect them?.
Posted: Jun 9th 2009 11:37AM vidguy said
Two gamers are suing on behalf of the class of Madden buyers. They actually have a great case - your first line completely misses the point. The judge recognizes that, without NFL licensing, a football videogame will do poorly. In effect, an unlicensed game is not a substitute for an NFL game - and EA has a monopoly on that.
Reply
Posted: Jun 9th 2009 12:01PM Professor Lario said
@vidGuy - so all exclusive branding deals should now be made moot?
Reply
Posted: Jun 9th 2009 12:12PM vidguy said
@ Professor Lario, it's different than that. Let's say the NFL licensed with Nike - only Nike can make shoes with the NFL logo. This is a permissive exclusive license. But what if the shoes were so popular that no one bought another type of shoe? In effect, the exclusive license with the NFL would give Nike a perfect monopoly on shoe sales. This is what the plaintiffs assert - that the NFL license completely eliminates competition for video football games.
If the court recognizes "video football games" as a separate class (instead of, say "video games" or "football merchandise") there is a significant likelihood that the court will recognize that EA Sports dominates "video football games" and therefore has a monopoly.
Reply
If the court recognizes "video football games" as a separate class (instead of, say "video games" or "football merchandise") there is a significant likelihood that the court will recognize that EA Sports dominates "video football games" and therefore has a monopoly.
Posted: Jun 9th 2009 12:24PM rowd149 said
Football games are generally seen as a simulation (that you get to control) of what you see on TV. Therefore, the value of accurate stats, teams, players, etc is huge, as shown by EA's own investment on making such aspects more and more accurate. One could easily say that, without an NFL license, the value of a game to NFL fans (who make up the majority of football game buyers) is almost zero. It's not just the branding, it's the true-to-life simulation that comes with it.
Reply
Posted: Jun 9th 2009 11:28AM Ozymandias said
Well done!
Madden has never lived up to NFL 2k and the NFL really shafted us on that one. They don't have a realistic shot, BUT this can raise awareness. If we can make enough of a thorn in the NFL's side maybe they'll back off the money printing machine.
I'm a law student, and the only thing I could possibly think of is shooting for the interstate commerce side. If the government is granting the NFL that deal, perhaps you could say that monopolistic checks could apply. Not realistic I know, but the only thing I've got. Practically speaking we all know this is a monopoly, just gotta figure out how to get a strong label on there.
Madden has never lived up to NFL 2k and the NFL really shafted us on that one. They don't have a realistic shot, BUT this can raise awareness. If we can make enough of a thorn in the NFL's side maybe they'll back off the money printing machine.
I'm a law student, and the only thing I could possibly think of is shooting for the interstate commerce side. If the government is granting the NFL that deal, perhaps you could say that monopolistic checks could apply. Not realistic I know, but the only thing I've got. Practically speaking we all know this is a monopoly, just gotta figure out how to get a strong label on there.
Posted: Jun 9th 2009 11:33AM (Unverified) said
I want to see this move forward; if only to see a stop to changing a number in the title to make a sequel.
Posted: Jun 9th 2009 11:35AM Chris DPSN AggieCEO XBLThe Aggi said
How can you Fault EA for doing something the NFL ALLOWED them to do???
Not to mention there are other football games out there....Like Bitlz: The League...
Not to mention there are other football games out there....Like Bitlz: The League...
Posted: Jun 9th 2009 12:08PM (Unverified) said
The same way you could fault Microsoft and AT&T for buying all their competitors even though their CEOs ALLOWED them to do it
Reply
Posted: Jun 9th 2009 1:14PM Chris DPSN AggieCEO XBLThe Aggi said
I dont think it will get that far....as I stated there are other football games....as for MS and AT&T they both have had their Monopoly cases in the past....MS case was thrown out and AT&T was Broke up in to numerous companies....but thanks to cable and vonage bring "competition" AT&T can go back to what it was in the 30's....MASSIVE
Reply
Posted: Jun 9th 2009 1:20PM Vcize said
But vidguy, there was no "colluding" between the NFL and EA here. The NFL put the license up for bid and all interested companies put in a bid on it, including 2k sports. EA's bid was just higher.
I used to work for a graduation photography company and it worked the same way. A university would put the exclusive photo rights for their graduation up for bid and companies would each bid on it. The winning company would have the exclusive rights to take and sell photos from that graduation. If another photographer had a problem with it he would have to go after the university, not the photographer.
I just don't get why this lawsuit wasn't aimed at the NFL rather than EA from the get-go. It's most likely because these guys didn't understand the terms of the agreement.
Reply
I used to work for a graduation photography company and it worked the same way. A university would put the exclusive photo rights for their graduation up for bid and companies would each bid on it. The winning company would have the exclusive rights to take and sell photos from that graduation. If another photographer had a problem with it he would have to go after the university, not the photographer.
I just don't get why this lawsuit wasn't aimed at the NFL rather than EA from the get-go. It's most likely because these guys didn't understand the terms of the agreement.
Posted: Jun 11th 2009 1:36AM (Unverified) said
Well, that would make sense the problem is the NFL didn't go to both companies. They went to EA first. They had always wanted EA more than 2k.
Reply
Posted: Jun 9th 2009 11:41AM SisypheanLife said
This case doesn't have a chance. EA isn't stopping anyone from making a football game. They simply have exclusive rights to the NFL BRAND in a video game. They can license out their brand however they see fit.
Posted: Jun 9th 2009 11:46AM vidguy said
As a second year law student, after reading through the opinion I think this case has a great chance of succeeding on its merits, but is full of procedural holes. The judge has framed the issue like this:
EA produces the only NFL game. Because unlicensed football games (ie games with fictitious teams) are not substitutes for a licensed game (easily proven by sales figures), EA's NFL exclusivity license creates a monopoly on football games.
The issues involve determining whether a conspiracy existed under Twombly and other such procedural problems. Also note, this is a preliminary ruling and the judge has not really looked at any evidence - thus why the court has to accept the allegations as true for purposes of the 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
EA produces the only NFL game. Because unlicensed football games (ie games with fictitious teams) are not substitutes for a licensed game (easily proven by sales figures), EA's NFL exclusivity license creates a monopoly on football games.
The issues involve determining whether a conspiracy existed under Twombly and other such procedural problems. Also note, this is a preliminary ruling and the judge has not really looked at any evidence - thus why the court has to accept the allegations as true for purposes of the 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Posted: Jun 9th 2009 12:00PM CaptainProtonX said
Thanks for the clarity. EA's deal with the NFL seemed dogmatic to me. Nice to see there is real merit to the financial devastation the deal has made to competitors.
Reply
Posted: Jun 9th 2009 12:01PM vidguy said
Let me reiterate this point. The court has recognized that, if the plaintiff class can prove that an unlicensed football game "will not sell" as compared to licensed games, this proves that there are no substitutes for NFL games. See:
"As the court understands these allegations, interactive
football software will not sell if it does not use the names, logos
and other markers of teams that actually compete in the NFL; there
is, in effect, no market for interactive football software in a
virtual or fictitious setting. If true —— as the court must at this
point accept —— this adequately alleges that there are no
substitutes for interactive football software without the markers of
actual teams and players."
By showing that games such as Blitz or Tecmo sell poorly compared to Madden, the plaintiffs will establish the beginning point for a anti-competitive (monopoly) suit. There's much more to it, but this does create a good starting point.
Reply
"As the court understands these allegations, interactive
football software will not sell if it does not use the names, logos
and other markers of teams that actually compete in the NFL; there
is, in effect, no market for interactive football software in a
virtual or fictitious setting. If true —— as the court must at this
point accept —— this adequately alleges that there are no
substitutes for interactive football software without the markers of
actual teams and players."
By showing that games such as Blitz or Tecmo sell poorly compared to Madden, the plaintiffs will establish the beginning point for a anti-competitive (monopoly) suit. There's much more to it, but this does create a good starting point.
Posted: Jun 9th 2009 12:12PM Professor Lario said
I respect your undergraduate law experience, but you are wrong. The purpose of licensing is to increase a brand's sales and ultimately succeed over the competition. Businesses enter into licensing agreements that bring awareness and exclusivity to brands.
A suit against an NFL licensed football game, similar to Halo Mountain Dew or Beatles Rock Band, has no chance of succeeding.
Reply
A suit against an NFL licensed football game, similar to Halo Mountain Dew or Beatles Rock Band, has no chance of succeeding.
Posted: Jun 9th 2009 12:19PM vidguy said
You are missing the point about the monopoly class. Your examples do not eliminate all substitutes. A "Halo Mountain Dew" does not eliminate all sales of regular Mountain Dew, let alone all "softdrinks." A Beatles Rock Band does not eliminate all sales of "Rock Band," let alone all sales of "interactive music games."
Here, the point is that an exclusive NFL license eliminates the competition of all "football video games." Also, to be declared a monopoly a company does not need 100% of sales, only a significant proportion to have monopoly power (usually around 85%).
Reply
Here, the point is that an exclusive NFL license eliminates the competition of all "football video games." Also, to be declared a monopoly a company does not need 100% of sales, only a significant proportion to have monopoly power (usually around 85%).
Posted: Jun 9th 2009 12:29PM Vidikron said
But we're dealing with licensing here. Even if the judge does rule this way what can EA do about it? It's the NFL that agreed to license their brand exclusively to EA, not EA that forced the NFL to do so. So it seems like even if you are correct the current suit is a waste of time and will have to be repeated with the NFL.
Reply
Posted: Jun 9th 2009 12:29PM Professor Lario said
I see your point regarding the monopoly, but what it comes down to is a judge arbitrarily deciding what constitutes a monopoly segment - but we can agree to disagree.
A better question and arguably a better case would be whether the NFL as a whole is a monopoly over the sport of football
Reply
A better question and arguably a better case would be whether the NFL as a whole is a monopoly over the sport of football
Posted: Jun 9th 2009 12:46PM vidguy said
If the evidence starts to show signs of a conspiracy (colluding) between the NFL, AFL, and NCAA and EA to create a monopoly on "football video games," the plaintiffs will likely join the NFL and other parties to the suit.
If they can show that "the series of exclusive deals between EA and the NFL, AFL and NCAA “killed off” competition and “prevented [competitors] from reentering
the market," the court will likely eliminate exclusive licensing where such licensing eliminates all potential competitors in the market.
Interestingly, the court references an opinion from a case about Topps and MLB. That court defined the appropriate market segment as “‘pocket-size pictures of active major league baseball players, sold alone or in combination with a low cost
premium, at a price of 15 to 50 cents.’” The plaintiffs failed because the minor leagues and even individual MLB players could negotiate to sell to Topps' competitors.
Here, there is no such competition. And considering there is probably evidence that EA leveraged its deal with the NFL to nab the deal with the NCAA - there could be evidence of an illegal conspiracy.
Reply
If they can show that "the series of exclusive deals between EA and the NFL, AFL and NCAA “killed off” competition and “prevented [competitors] from reentering
the market," the court will likely eliminate exclusive licensing where such licensing eliminates all potential competitors in the market.
Interestingly, the court references an opinion from a case about Topps and MLB. That court defined the appropriate market segment as “‘pocket-size pictures of active major league baseball players, sold alone or in combination with a low cost
premium, at a price of 15 to 50 cents.’” The plaintiffs failed because the minor leagues and even individual MLB players could negotiate to sell to Topps' competitors.
Here, there is no such competition. And considering there is probably evidence that EA leveraged its deal with the NFL to nab the deal with the NCAA - there could be evidence of an illegal conspiracy.
Posted: Jun 9th 2009 11:53AM deedubbadoo said
Judge, like me, must have loved him some ESPN NFL 2K5!
Posted: Jun 9th 2009 11:58AM bigC24 said
They don't have a chance with this case. The fact is that the NFL initiated exclusivity talks with both companies (EA and Take Two) and EA won out. EA didn't just up and demand exclusivity in order to eliminate the competition, the fault lies on the NFL here.
This is no different than how the NFL has an exclusive deal with Reebok to produce jerseys, but nobody is off suing them.
In my personal opinion I don't think that the issue here is so much that there is an exclusive NFL game, it's that it is being produce by EA. The company that it's trendy to hate for whatever reason.
This is no different than how the NFL has an exclusive deal with Reebok to produce jerseys, but nobody is off suing them.
In my personal opinion I don't think that the issue here is so much that there is an exclusive NFL game, it's that it is being produce by EA. The company that it's trendy to hate for whatever reason.
Posted: Jun 9th 2009 12:18PM Ozymandias said
NFL 2k5 was a better game than Madden and sold for 20 dollars thus reflecting the true value of an annual football game. It was the free market at work. Instead of boosting the production value of the game and lowering the price, EA bought the exclusive rights to the NFL games and every single Madden game has been lackluster. Everyone who focuses knows it. They barely try at all and it's the only option available right now. Someone needs to call bullshit on it, because a lot of the people buying madden games just don't know enough about the situation.
This is just one of many damn good reasons to hate EA.
Reply
This is just one of many damn good reasons to hate EA.
Posted: Jun 9th 2009 11:59AM (Unverified) said
The NFL 2k series was FAR superior to Madden.
But isn't this pretty pointless, since EA's exclusivity ends next year? And what about the REAL NFL? It was because of the NFL's overwhelming greed, that this was allowed to happen... Why isn't the National Football League named, in this suit, as well?
But isn't this pretty pointless, since EA's exclusivity ends next year? And what about the REAL NFL? It was because of the NFL's overwhelming greed, that this was allowed to happen... Why isn't the National Football League named, in this suit, as well?
Posted: Jun 9th 2009 12:01PM StormEagle said
It's a glorious day in the realm of video games!
GLORIOUS!
GLORIOUS!
Posted: Jun 9th 2009 12:06PM Konrad said
I always thought it was pretty hilarious that EA snatched up the NFL license about six minutes after NFL 2K5 had a first day price of $19.99.
I hope this goes through, but I know it won't.
I hope this goes through, but I know it won't.
Posted: Jun 9th 2009 12:08PM s ls said
About fucking time EA charges $60 for the same damn game every year while 2K Sports games are always cheaper.. NFL 2K5 and MLB 2K5 were $20 when they came out but then EA and NFL inked a deal as soon as they felt the pressure
Posted: Jun 9th 2009 12:45PM Vidikron said
I agree with why EA bought the license, but the way some of you guys talk there is the huge gulf between Madden and the 2K series in terms of quality.... but there really wasn't. Some people may have preferred the 2K series, but that's purely a personal preference. I have a friend that is a huge football game fanatic and he hated the 2K series... but that was his preference.
Reply
Posted: Jun 9th 2009 12:11PM (Unverified) said
I'd pay see this play out like a Phoenix Wright trial.
Posted: Jun 9th 2009 12:22PM ducttapeBigSexy said
The US court system wastes so much tax payer money. Did a judge really need to say that John Madden can walk forward while wearing a suit made out of Monopoly pieces?
