Madden NFL 10 Superbowl Video: Cowboys vs. Titans

[PBJTime]

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.

This is getting exhausting. I believe this debating thing is a fun pastime for you, hence the reason that you are so entrenched in the semantics of it all. You have little to argue, when it comes to the practicality of it all, so you attack the verbiage.

I didn't say they are now slackers, that is your term. I don't think it is wrong to think that they do enough to get by. I see their products, I know, as a consumer. I also remember the competitive pricing that no longer exists.

Answer me this. Would competition be helpful in this situation?

 

[PBJTime]

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.

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.

If this case had no merit, it would have been dismissed. I think you're being intellectually dishonest.

 

[peplaw06]

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

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.

Again, the NFL IS a monopoly. So of course the NFL can be considered monopolistic.

The exclusive license is not the monopoly though. The league is. So you can only consider EA to have the monopoly if you don't distinguish the terms.

 

[fannypack]

Again, the NFL IS a monopoly. So of course the NFL can be considered monopolistic.

The exclusive license is not the monopoly though. The league is. So you can only consider EA to have the monopoly if you don't distinguish the terms.

PBJ, remind me to look pep up whenever I need a lawyer, sheesh.

The NFL has an exclusive license with EA to publish works based off of the NFL brand and logo. In my mind this doesn't suddenly exempt EA from abiding by anti-trust laws.

 

[PBJTime]

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

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?

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

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

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

Now, I think I've found the reasoning behind all of this. Nobody is saying that this is not a lucrative deal for EA, but that is not my concern. You seem to be concerned for EA's welfare, for one reason or another. Maybe you own shares, I don't know.

What you are arguing for goes against what is best for the consumers.

 

[peplaw06]

This is getting exhausting. I believe this debating thing is a fun pastime for you, hence the reason that you are so entrenched in the semantics of it all. You have little to argue, when it comes to the practicality of it all, so you attack the verbiage.

Because the verbiage is important. I'm really sorry that you don't understand the differences. That's what I'm trying to explain, but you won't listen. My profession is dealing with words and their meanings.

I didn't say they are now slackers, that is your term. I don't think it is wrong to think that they do enough to get by. I see their products, I know, as a consumer. I also remember the competitive pricing that no longer exists.

Answer me this. Would competition be helpful in this situation?

Helpful to whom? To the NFL? Apparently not, at least they don't think so. To EA, probably not. They signed the deal too. To the consumer? Who knows? Consumers are fickle. Apparently the consumer isn't pissed off about it enough to tell the NFL/EA that it would be.

 

[fannypack]

Now, I think I've found the reasoning behind all of this. Nobody is saying that this is not a lucrative deal for EA, but that is not my concern. You seem to be concerned for EA's welfare, for one reason or another. Maybe you own shares, I don't know.

What you are arguing for goes against what is best for the consumers.

I know, that's what I don't get either. It's fine if you're completely happy with Madden. I don't think it's a bad game overall. But I just don't understand how cutting off the competition makes sense for anyone other than EA.

 

[peplaw06]

If this case had no merit, it would have been dismissed. I think you're being intellectually dishonest.

There are a million factors in existence that you don't know from that little blurb. Just because the case may have some merit, doesn't mean it's a winner.

Please, show me how I'm being intellectually dishonest...

 

[fannypack]

Because the verbiage is important. I'm really sorry that you don't understand the differences. That's what I'm trying to explain, but you won't listen. My profession is dealing with words and their meanings.

Helpful to whom? To the NFL? Apparently not, at least they don't think so. To EA, probably not. They signed the deal too. To the consumer? Who knows? Consumers are fickle. Apparently the consumer isn't pissed off about it enough to tell the NFL/EA that it would be.

Because as you've said, most consumers aren't rabid football junkies.
That does not all of a sudden make it something that shouldn't be investigated.

 

[peplaw06]

PBJ, remind me to look pep up whenever I need a lawyer, sheesh.

The NFL has an exclusive license with EA to publish works based off of the NFL brand and logo. In my mind this doesn't suddenly exempt EA from abiding by anti-trust laws.

Jerry Jones has an exclusive contract to serve Pepsi products at Cowboys games. Does Coca Cola have grounds to sue him?

 

[PBJTime]

Because the verbiage is important. I'm really sorry that you don't understand the differences. That's what I'm trying to explain, but you won't listen. My profession is dealing with words and their meanings.

Helpful to whom? To the NFL? Apparently not, at least they don't think so. To EA, probably not. They signed the deal too. To the consumer? Who knows? Consumers are fickle. Apparently the consumer isn't pissed off about it enough to tell the NFL/EA that it would be.

Verbiage is important, however, it should not be your crutch for the argument. You attack the semantics and misdirect, when I'm pretty sure you know what you're saying defies common sense.

Have to go eat, will be back later.

 

[peplaw06]

Now, I think I've found the reasoning behind all of this. Nobody is saying that this is not a lucrative deal for EA, but that is not my concern. You seem to be concerned for EA's welfare, for one reason or another. Maybe you own shares, I don't know.

What you are arguing for goes against what is best for the consumers.

You're a consumer of the NFL too. Does it bug you that they agreed to license to EA exclusively? Why not?

The problem is EA gets all the hate, when all they're guilty of is good business sense.

 

[peplaw06]

I know, that's what I don't get either. It's fine if you're completely happy with Madden. I don't think it's a bad game overall. But I just don't understand how cutting off the competition makes sense for anyone other than EA.

If it didn't make sense for the NFL, they wouldn't do it.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

There are a million factors in existence that you don't know from that little blurb. Just because the case may have some merit, doesn't mean it's a winner.

Please, show me how I'm being intellectually dishonest...

you = lawyer

/discussion

 

[peplaw06]

Because as you've said, most consumers aren't rabid football junkies.
That does not all of a sudden make it something that shouldn't be investigated.

Hey, as a consumer, if you want it to change, you have one option. Buy it or don't. If enough people don't buy it, EA loses money, and the exclusivity is gone.

But the consumers are so rabid in their support, they buy the game. Are you planning on buying it? Have you in the past few years?

 

[peplaw06]

Verbiage is important, however, it should not be your crutch for the argument. You attack the semantics and misdirect, when I'm pretty sure you know what you're saying defies common sense.

Have to go eat, will be back later.

It's not a crutch, it's the crux. It's non-sensical to me to complain about this being a monopoly when it isn't. If that's common sense, then common sense is wrong.

 

[fannypack]

Jerry Jones has an exclusive contract to serve Pepsi products at Cowboys games. Does Coca Cola have grounds to sue him?

Fair point, but the two things being compared here are different. We're talking about a software product as opposed to a consumable product.

In the instance of Pepsi, if you dislike Pepsi, chances are there are other Pepsi products that you like. Mountain Dew, Dr Pepper or plain water.

But let's suppose that you dislike Pepsi for some reason outside of taste. There is then beer and other beverages.

The issue here is that most football fans interested in a real football video game experience aren't satisfied unless that experience is identical to what they view on TV. For this reason comparing the license of a soda manufacturer / distributor to that of a video game doesn't fit.

 

[peplaw06]

you = lawyer

/discussion

I may be dishonest, but not intellectually so.

 

[fannypack]

This is actually quite a fun debate. Mods, if you view this thread and see that it has gone bonkers please move it rather than delete/lock it.

 

[peplaw06]

Fair point, but the two things being compared here are different. We're talking about a software product as opposed to a consumable product.

In the instance of Pepsi, if you dislike Pepsi, chances are there are other Pepsi products that you like. Mountain Dew, Dr Pepper or plain water.

But let's suppose that you dislike Pepsi for some reason outside of taste. There is then beer and other beverages.

The issue here is that most football fans interested in a real football video game experience aren't satisfied unless that experience is identical to what they view on TV. For this reason comparing the license of a soda manufacturer / distributor to that of a video game doesn't fit.

The issue is that exclusive licenses are legal. That is all.