Madden NFL 10 Superbowl Video: Cowboys vs. Titans

[peplaw06]

My analogy wasn't comparing real life to a video game. The argument was, no matter how much you don't want to eat that horse, if you want to survive, you have to eat it.

Again, you're not going to die if you don't play a video game. So the analogy doesn't work.

If you want to play a real football game, no matter if the game has improved from last year or not, you've gotta play Madden. The competition has been removed and EA holds the keys.

No. The NFL holds the keys.

So instead of sitting there and lecturing me on what a choice is, why not do the logical thing and try and realize that I'm making a point here, an obvious one, THERE ARE NO OTHER AUTHENTIC FOOTBALL GAMES DUE TO EA/NFL.

That's your point? That there are no other options? Well duh.

Your original post in this thread asserts or implies that this is a monopoly. It's not.

I don't care who is responsible, the NFL or EA. It's bad for consumers. And you're really foolish to believe that someone isn't going to watch an NFL game due to who is broadcasting it. Very, very foolish. I can concede there is a difference, but that difference isn't going to stop 99% of football fans from watching a game they want to watch. Apparently you fall into the 1% range (Peplaw).

If you don't care who is responsible, then why rail on EA, and not on the NFL. If you are going to be peeved at anyone it SHOULD be the NFL. Do you really blame EA for cornering a market when they have the chance to do it legally? Any business that wants to make money (all of them) would do the same thing.

I never said someone isn't going to watch an NFL game due to who is broadcasting it. I'm merely making the analogy. But since you mentioned it, I'm sure there are some who make that choice. I know there are people on this board (aka rabid football fans) who mute a broadcast because they like other people's play-by-play better. So certainly there are people who refuse to watch altogether. And I don't know where in the world you get that I would do that. You seem to like making things up.

So suppose I like the way ABC covers a game better than say, the NFL network. That preference is fine, that's a matter of taste. But it almost in no way impacts the GAME itself. The teams control the kind of football you're going to watch, the quality of the game.

You're spinning out of control. It's a simple concept. The NFL licenses companies to do things. That's what they did here. It doesn't impact anything in real life either.

You continue to argue the semantics, I'll continue to argue the issues that people really care about.

And what issues are those? Whether it's a monopoly or not?? Considering that was the gist of your first post, that's what I've been arguing. It's not semantics.

 

[peplaw06]

I'm positive that competition would spur more changes than the current setup.

It might... might not. That's not the point.

Again, this is a side issue, a diversion. I was pointing out my issue, not who it was with.

How is it a diversion, when in the same post you alleged that EA wouldn't have to make the changes you feel are necessary to improve their game?

I don't think EA has changed the way they operate and/or make improvements on their game because they have an exclusive license.

My overall thinking is that exclusivity is a negative thing in this instance. Competition would only help things. The problem with the current situation is that EA is essentially, legally allowed to have a monopoly on NFL games. When have monopolies ever been good for consumers? But, I am getting sidetracked here.

It's not a monopoly. That's where you and fannypack are off. It's a licensing issue. They're completely distinct concepts.

I think you're well aware of the ideas in this thread. You seem like an intelligent person.

In the end, there's virtually nothing any of us can do about it. We just have to suck it up and play Madden or find something else to do.

I am well aware of the issues in this thread. The first post I responded to compared the fact that Coke has Pepsi as a competitor, DirecTV has Dish Net, that tap water has bottled water (genius ), etc. to the fact that Madden is by itself, implying that it's a monopoly. I disagreed, because it's a licensing issue, and the NFL gives out exclusive licenses all the time.

 

[fannypack]

Dude, are you serious?

When I mentioned those things, such as Coke and Pepsi I did so because I was showing that in many things in life, we get those kinds of choices. I don't care if the reason WHY we get or don't get the choices has to do with monopolies, licenses or anything else.

The only thing I care about is substance, and having one single game to choose from in the way of emulating professional football can't be a good thing, no matter how you slice it, dice it, spin it, or spout it.

Whether EA or the NFL to blame in the end matters little. I initially pegged it to EA, but if it's in fact the NFL doing it, the fact remains.

We have one sole choice, Madden, or no Madden.

How can you argue that?

 

[Four]

I prefer soccer games...

 

[peplaw06]

Dude, are you serious?

When I mentioned those things, such as Coke and Pepsi I did so because I was showing that in many things in life, we get those kinds of choices. I don't care if the reason WHY we get or don't get the choices has to do with monopolies, licenses or anything else.

Oh please.... You said trigger words such as "exclusivity" and "completely cutting off competition."

You're either being obtuse or your less intelligent than I thought.

Whether EA or the NFL to blame in the end matters little. I initially pegged it to EA, but if it's in fact the NFL doing it, the fact remains.

Sure... it matters little now that you've been called on it.

We have one sole choice, Madden, or no Madden.

How can you argue that?

Who in the world would argue that?

You want me to sit here and say, "NO, you can choose to play NFL 2k10!!"?

 

[masomenos]

I have a confession.

I haven't purchased a new football game since ESPN 2K5. Every offseason, I do my best to update the 2k5 rosters for the Cowboys and all Cowboy opponents for that season.

Sad, huh?

A noble cause, in my opinion

 

[PBJTime]

It might... might not. That's not the point.

Now, you're just being contentious. There is a reason that monopolies are illegal. It's not because monopolies make things better.

How is it a diversion, when in the same post you alleged that EA wouldn't have to make the changes you feel are necessary to improve their game?

My point is that this "exclusive license" (since you seem to be so fearful of the word "monopoly") is not good for consumers. Regarding EA, you're either naive or ignorant if you believe that EA is working as hard as they would be were there a competitive product on the market. Again, that's a side issue. If I haven't made myself clear before, then take my above point as my stance on all of this.

I don't think EA has changed the way they operate and/or make improvements on their game because they have an exclusive license.

I addressed this above. Also, what you "think" has little bearing on the reality of things. Like you said, they may have...may not have. That's not the point.

It's not a monopoly. That's where you and fannypack are off. It's a licensing issue. They're completely distinct concepts.

Semantics, again. Since you seem to love debating semantics, here's something you can appreciate. From dictionary.com:

mo⋅nop⋅o⋅ly
–noun, plural -lies.
1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.
2. an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government.
3. the exclusive possession or control of something.
4. something that is the subject of such control, as a commodity or service.
5. a company or group that has such control.
6. the market condition that exists when there is only one seller.
7. (initial capital letter

) a board game in which a player attempts to gain a monopoly of important real estate by advancing around the board and purchasing property, acquiring capital by collecting rent from other players whose pieces land on that property.

In what way is my labeling this a monopoly considered a misnomer, given the above reference? Specifically, look at #6.

I am well aware of the issues in this thread. The first post I responded to compared the fact that Coke has Pepsi as a competitor, DirecTV has Dish Net, that tap water has bottled water (genius ), etc. to the fact that Madden is by itself, implying that it's a monopoly. I disagreed, because it's a licensing issue, and the NFL gives out exclusive licenses all the time.

So, the NFL allows monopolies all the time? That's the bottom line of your argument? Are you postulating that because the NFL gives out licenses all the time, that proves this is not a monopoly? I'm really not sure what you're saying. That would be some seriously flawed logic.

I think that we are getting seriously sidetracked. I'm still not quite sure why you're vehemently defending your position the way you are. I think it defies all common sense to believe that this exclusive license is a good thing or that it wouldn't be better were there competition. It certainly wouldn't hurt anything. I don't think it would be off the mark to think that EA would try harder if another game started taking away some of their profits. Do you?

 

[fannypack]

Oh please.... You said trigger words such as "exclusivity" and "completely cutting off competition."

Okay.. but I never did mention monopoly, which you said I had implied. I never did imply it, but since you're trying to spin the entire argument around into a what I said, what I meant, what I say, what I mean kind of thing I'll play the game.

Trigger words, huh? Am I not allowed to be irritated at EA, or the NFL, for doing this? Regardless of their business tactic? No? Why not? I'm not allowed to make a comment about EA cutting off the competition? The NFL? You never cared to mention how it was the NFL until much, much later in this thread. Your position almost entirely through this whole discussion has been how it's a choice. My take has been that you really can't say we have a choice when we have literally one game to pick from.

Care to explain how holding the license is NOT cutting off competition? How do you suppose other companies should go about making a football sim? You kind of need some realism in most cases to make for a good sim. I don't find some kind of concocted Cowboys star made to mimic the Cowboys star my idea of realism. This license has cut off the competition. Unless of course, you're a fan of Blitz.

You're either being obtuse or your less intelligent than I thought.

Whatever you say.

Sure... it matters little now that you've been called on it.

What about the fact that you were called on arguing the friggin point of what an actual choice is? You'd rather battle me down to the end on what a 'Choice' is by definition, rather than do as most people and try and level with me to see my point. What's the point? I've said it over a hundred times but you keep skipping over it.

Who in the world would argue that?


You want me to sit here and say, "NO, you can choose to play NFL 2k10!!"?

Wait, I guess you just did agree with me. Finally.

 

[PBJTime]

Apparently, a federal judge doesn't think that we are so far off the mark. In fact, it kind of goes against everything you are saying. We'll see what the results are, I suppose.

http://www.gamepolitics.com/2009/06/08/federal-judge-madden-monopoly-suit-may-proceed-against-ea

Specifically, take note of this:

The suit, essentially following a line of reasoning laid out here on GamePolitics, describes how EA, faced with competition from Take-Two's excellent NFL 2K5, reduced the price of Madden from $49.99 to $29.99 in order to stay competitive with NFL 2K5, which was aggressively priced at $19.99. However, once the exclusive NFL and NFLPA deals were inked, the unlicensed NFL 2K series was discontinued and EA, facing no competition, jacked the price of Madden back up to $49.99.

If that is not behavior of a company (specifically EA here, and not the NFL) working towards a monopoly, then I don't know what is.

 

[fannypack]

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.

Completely, fully, absolutely 100% on the mark.

EDIT: Here's a comment from a guy on that site.

Re: Federal Judge: Madden Monopoly Suit May Proceed Against ...
Submitted by JDKJ - June 9, 2009 at 2:56 pm -0500 As a matter of pure antitrust law, there's nothing wrong with exclusive contracting. Copyright holders license their products on an exclusive basis all the time. Exclusivity ceates market benefits for the licensee for which they've usually paid a whopping premium to the licensor. And that's all well and good. What the antitrust laws are intended to combat, in part, is monopoly market share (i.e., the ability to control supply and therefore set prices). Holding exclusive rights may help the monopolizer gain monopolistic market share but the mere fact of exclusivity isn't illegal - in fact, it's protected by copyright and other intellectual property law. It's the ability to circumvent the market forces of supply and demand in setting prices which shafts the consumer and is therefore illegal.

You can easily see here how what EA/NFL have done with Madden 10 and the pricing thing can be considered monopolistic. Thanks for pointing that out PBJ, I had forgotten that they had lowered the price on Madden. Once they controlled the supply and subsequently the demand, they raised the price.

 

[RainMan]

One of my BIGGEST (and silliest) Madden pet peeves? The fact that they can't get the lettering style for the names on the back of the jersey correct. The NFL 2K series got this right during its early years. Madden has never seemed to care for this detail.

Ok, that stupid rant aside, I'm never quite as amazed by the Madden previews as I want to be. I want to see a somewhat new-looking game, with better graphics and WAY better presentation elements. The game makes improvements, but they generally seem like baby steps, and they often leave a lot of things undone.

But with that said, I buy it every year, and end up having tons of fun playing it against friends and online.

I'll admit they have me hooked. I think it sucks the NFL granted the rights to EA as I love the competition 2K brought. Truth be told, I bought both games every year when 2K was around. But I'd be lying if I ever pretended I'd boycott Madden out of some protest. I'm an addict, and need the new one whenever it comes out.

 

[fannypack]

I do agree that we (Well, me and Pep) have really sidetracked the thread. We can always carry this over into the politics/other forum. But I think PBJ has really slammed home the point with a hefty right hook.

 

[PBJTime]

One of my BIGGEST (and silliest) Madden pet peeves? The fact that they can't get the lettering style for the names on the back of the jersey correct. The NFL 2K series got this right during its early years. Madden has never seemed to care for this detail.

Ok, that stupid rant aside, I'm never quite as amazed by the Madden previews as I want to be. I want to see a somewhat new-looking game, with better graphics and WAY better presentation elements. The game makes improvements, but they generally seem like baby steps, and they often leave a lot of things undone.

But with that said, I buy it every year, and end up having tons of fun playing it against friends and online.

I'll admit they have me hooked. I think it sucks the NFL granted the rights to EA as I love the competition 2K brought. Truth be told, I bought both games every year when 2K was around. But I'd be lying if I ever pretended I'd boycott Madden out of some protest. I'm an addict, and need the new one whenever it comes out.

Sadly, it's the same with me. I always tell myself that I won't buy the new Madden and I'll just play the one I have for another year...but that never works out.

 

[peplaw06]

Apparently, a federal judge doesn't think that we are so far off the mark. In fact, it kind of goes against everything you are saying. We'll see what the results are, I suppose.

http://www.gamepolitics.com/2009/06/08/federal-judge-madden-monopoly-suit-may-proceed-against-ea

Specifically, take note of this:

The suit, essentially following a line of reasoning laid out here on GamePolitics, describes how EA, faced with competition from Take-Two's excellent NFL 2K5, reduced the price of Madden from $49.99 to $29.99 in order to stay competitive with NFL 2K5, which was aggressively priced at $19.99. However, once the exclusive NFL and NFLPA deals were inked, the unlicensed NFL 2K series was discontinued and EA, facing no competition, jacked the price of Madden back up to $49.99.

If that is not behavior of a company (specifically EA here, and not the NFL) working towards a monopoly, then I don't know what is.

All that story refers to is a denial of a Motion for Summary Judgment. EA tried to get the case dismissed, and the Judge didn't go with them. It has nothing to do with the merits of the case or whether they will win.

 

[peplaw06]

Now, you're just being contentious. There is a reason that monopolies are illegal. It's not because monopolies make things better.

Actually not all monopolies are illegal, but that's beside the point, because this isn't a monopoly.

My point is that this "exclusive license" (since you seem to be so fearful of the word "monopoly") is not good for consumers. Regarding EA, you're either naive or ignorant if you believe that EA is working as hard as they would be were there a competitive product on the market. Again, that's a side issue. If I haven't made myself clear before, then take my above point as my stance on all of this.

Why would EA slack off? They could lose exclusivity by doing that. Not good business sense.

Semantics, again. Since you seem to love debating semantics, here's something you can appreciate. From dictionary.com:

mo⋅nop⋅o⋅ly
–noun, plural -lies.
1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.
2. an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government.
3. the exclusive possession or control of something.
4. something that is the subject of such control, as a commodity or service.
5. a company or group that has such control.
6. the market condition that exists when there is only one seller.
7. (initial capital letter

) a board game in which a player attempts to gain a monopoly of important real estate by advancing around the board and purchasing property, acquiring capital by collecting rent from other players whose pieces land on that property.


In what way is my labeling this a monopoly considered a misnomer, given the above reference? Specifically, look at #6.

The NFL IS the monopoly. And it's legal for them to have a monopoly. Anti-trust exemption. Then the NFL licenses the use of their league and likeness to another. It's all completely legal.

So, the NFL allows monopolies all the time? That's the bottom line of your argument? Are you postulating that because the NFL gives out licenses all the time, that proves this is not a monopoly? I'm really not sure what you're saying. That would be some seriously flawed logic.

No. The NFL is a monopoly. The deal with EA is an exclusive license. It has nothing to do with being fearful of the word. It's a matter of using the terms correctly.

I think that we are getting seriously sidetracked. I'm still not quite sure why you're vehemently defending your position the way you are. I think it defies all common sense to believe that this exclusive license is a good thing or that it wouldn't be better were there competition. It certainly wouldn't hurt anything. I don't think it would be off the mark to think that EA would try harder if another game started taking away some of their profits. Do you?

I'm defending my position just as vehemently as you are yours. I think it's off the mark to suggest that just because EA has exclusivity that they are now suddenly slackers. What they accomplished in getting the license was HUGE for the company. They're not going to take that lightly and throw it away by stopping the business plan that got them where they are.

 

[fannypack]

All that story refers to is a denial of a Motion for Summary Judgment. EA tried to get the case dismissed, and the Judge didn't go with them. It has nothing to do with the merits of the case or whether they will win.

But the mere fact that they didn't dismiss it is pretty telling in my mind. When you look at the crux of the whole thing you can see where it may end up going.

 

[PBJTime]

All that story refers to is a denial of a Motion for Summary Judgment. EA tried to get the case dismissed, and the Judge didn't go with them. It has nothing to do with the merits of the case or whether they will win.

It has a good deal to do with the merits of the case. If it was as slam dunk as you seem to believe it is, it would have been dismissed.

 

[peplaw06]

Okay.. but I never did mention monopoly, which you said I had implied. I never did imply it,

OK, then I guess you're not as smart as I thought you were.

Trigger words, huh? Am I not allowed to be irritated at EA, or the NFL, for doing this? Regardless of their business tactic? No? Why not? I'm not allowed to make a comment about EA cutting off the competition? The NFL? You never cared to mention how it was the NFL until much, much later in this thread. Your position almost entirely through this whole discussion has been how it's a choice. My take has been that you really can't say we have a choice when we have literally one game to pick from.

You can be irritated all you want. All I'm saying is your irritation at EA is misguided.

Just answer this question... If you owned EA would you not want to do this deal?

Care to explain how holding the license is NOT cutting off competition? How do you suppose other companies should go about making a football sim? You kind of need some realism in most cases to make for a good sim. I don't find some kind of concocted Cowboys star made to mimic the Cowboys star my idea of realism. This license has cut off the competition. Unless of course, you're a fan of Blitz.

I never said it didn't cut off competition. Again, you're making things up.

What about the fact that you were called on arguing the friggin point of what an actual choice is? You'd rather battle me down to the end on what a 'Choice' is by definition, rather than do as most people and try and level with me to see my point. What's the point? I've said it over a hundred times but you keep skipping over it.

When were we arguing about the definition of choice? I think we were arguing over which choice you had.

Wait, I guess you just did agree with me. Finally.

No, you agreed with me. I said you have a choice, and you said you have the choice between Madden and no Madden.

 

[peplaw06]

But the mere fact that they didn't dismiss it is pretty telling in my mind. When you look at the crux of the whole thing you can see where it may end up going.

No. I don't have the inclination to tell you what the standard is for winning on a MSJ. Needless to say, it's a difficult thing to accomplish. I'm writing one right now actually.

It has a good deal to do with the merits of the case. If it was as slam dunk as you seem to believe it is, it would have been dismissed.

No it doesn't. The merits of the case have not been presented yet. Plenty of slam dunk cases don't get dismissed on Summary Judgment.

 

[fannypack]

Actually not all monopolies are illegal, but that's beside the point, because this isn't a monopoly.

[/color] Why would EA slack off? They could lose exclusivity by doing that. Not good business sense.

The NFL IS the monopoly. And it's legal for them to have a monopoly. Anti-trust exemption. Then the NFL licenses the use of their league and likeness to another. It's all completely legal.

No. The NFL is a monopoly. The deal with EA is an exclusive license. It has nothing to do with being fearful of the word. It's a matter of using the terms correctly.

I'm defending my position just as vehemently as you are yours. I think it's off the mark to suggest that just because EA has exclusivity that they are now suddenly slackers. What they accomplished in getting the license was HUGE for the company. They're not going to take that lightly and throw it away by stopping the business plan that got them where they are.

Did you not read this part pep?

Significantly, in turning down EA's request to dismiss, Judge Walker wrote that "interactive video football software" is a recognizable product market for anti-trust purposes