Madden NFL 10 Superbowl Video: Cowboys vs. Titans

[Fletch]

That was sweet looking. Finally, EA Sports has the Cowboy's uni's near perfect. The helmet looks great. The logo is not too small, and not oversized. The colors look really good. I'm impressed.

Romo looked spot on when he threw the ball. His motion and everything was very realistic. Overall, I'm impressed.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Ian Cumming is Tony Romo!

 

[ScipioCowboy]

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?

It's not merely semantics.

There's a definite and very important legal distinction here that Pep is endeavoring to explain.

 

[fannypack]

I don't see it. The more I think about it the more I believe that they have monopolized the NFL football market in terms of video games.

Consumers typically aren't going to buy into a football game unless it's an officially licensed game. Those that do, are the kind that play Blitz and APF, not exactly simulations style football games. They're not simulating actual football because the likeness, brands and logos have been licensed to EA.

Therefore if you ask me, EA/NFL have cornered the football market. Most video game producers aren't going to produce a football video game because of that fact. Blitz is a game that has been out, not necessarily to challenge Madden but to be a different take on football.

This license with the EA/NFL gives no wiggle room to football video game manufacturers. Any created games are going to be viewed as knockoffs and won't sell well, not because of any innovations, but the simple fact that they don't include the likenesses of their respective teams.

So they've put a stranglehold on the pricing (Because there can be no actual competitors) and they've nullified the ability for competition, because you can't compete, it's impossible.

 

[peplaw06]

I don't see it. The more I think about it the more I believe that they have monopolized the NFL football market in terms of video games.

Who is "they?" You act as if EA is some evil corporation lording over everyone, the NFL, 2k sports, the consumer, everyone. If it weren't for the NFL's involvement in this, it wouldn't exist.

Consumers typically aren't going to buy into a football game unless it's an officially licensed game. Those that do, are the kind that play Blitz and APF, not exactly simulations style football games. They're not simulating actual football because the likeness, brands and logos have been licensed to EA.

Who has the power to license these companies? Hint: It's not EA.

Therefore if you ask me, EA/NFL have cornered the football market. Most video game producers aren't going to produce a football video game because of that fact. Blitz is a game that has been out, not necessarily to challenge Madden but to be a different take on football.

The NFL already had the football market cornered. That's because they have an anti-trust exemption. They have the control over who gets to make the video game by selling licenses.

This license with the EA/NFL gives no wiggle room to football video game manufacturers. Any created games are going to be viewed as knockoffs and won't sell well, not because of any innovations, but the simple fact that they don't include the likenesses of their respective teams.

So they've put a stranglehold on the pricing (Because there can be no actual competitors) and they've nullified the ability for competition, because you can't compete, it's impossible.

There is wiggle room. 2k sports could have paid the NFL more money than EA and won the exclusive license back when it was up for grabs. They could try to outbid them now. So there can still be competition.

The reasons EA likely won the deal are because Madden is synonymous with video game football, and they could pay more money for it. It's just like any other business deal though. Contractors bid on jobs, and the employer decides who does the work based on their reputation and the price they bid.

 

[fannypack]

From what I've read (Because this has interested me so much) the simple fact that you own a license, or you license a company to carry your product/image/whatever does not necessarily exempt you from anti-trust laws.

I'm no legal expert. That I will admit. But it doesn't add up to me. Humor me some.

If in fact intellectual property and the licensing that accompanies that is not always exempt from anti-trust, can you please explain to me (And PBJ) when in fact something like this does breach those grounds?

Because I'm very curious to find out.

EDIT: Also, I understand the premise that a company can say "Hey, we're putting this up for bid, if you want to be the sole distributor of our name and brand, you'll need to be the highest bidder"

I understand this, so let's not get that part twisted. I realize the necessity for it, in fact.

What I'm trying to say here is, that many things in life have alternatives. As I saw one example made, you can license out which photo studio is going to develop your photos, this makes sense. But then, anyone else can choose to go with another studio.

The problem with Madden and football games in general, is that sales figures point out the fact that there is little interest, if really none in the grand scheme of things, in the football video game market UNLESS it includes the names and logos from the professional sport. This is why I feel there is a case to be made.

 

[peplaw06]

From what I've read (Because this has interested me so much) the simple fact that you own a license, or you license a company to carry your product/image/whatever does not necessarily exempt you from anti-trust laws.

I'm no legal expert. That I will admit. But it doesn't add up to me. Humor me some.

If in fact intellectual property and the licensing that accompanies that is not always exempt from anti-trust, can you please explain to me (And PBJ) when in fact something like this does breach those grounds?

Because I'm very curious to find out.

EA isn't exempt from anti-trust at all. The NFL is though. It all stems from the NFL's exemption. This is my understanding of this, and I'm not an anti-trust expert at all. So I suppose that there could be some grounds for a lawsuit, which apparently some attorney somewhere thinks that there are.

My understanding is that if an organization that is exempt from anti-trust licenses a company to use their product, or to provide them with their product, then that company is exempt. Reebok has the exclusive license to make NFL jerseys, so they have the exclusive right to make authentic jerseys and sell them in stores. 2k sports actually has the exclusive third-party licensing for Major League Baseball video games.

EDIT: Also, I understand the premise that a company can say "Hey, we're putting this up for bid, if you want to be the sole distributor of our name and brand, you'll need to be the highest bidder"

I understand this, so let's not get that part twisted. I realize the necessity for it, in fact.

What I'm trying to say here is, that many things in life have alternatives. As I saw one example made, you can license out which photo studio is going to develop your photos, this makes sense. But then, anyone else can choose to go with another studio.

I don't think I'm following your example. Are you talking about Joe Schmo licensing who does his photos? There's no need for a license there. Someone who has a marketable likeness though can license something like that. All of these video games have to get the rights to portray the likeness of the players, but it comes through the Players' Associations.

The problem with Madden and football games in general, is that sales figures point out the fact that there is little interest, if really none in the grand scheme of things, in the football video game market UNLESS it includes the names and logos from the professional sport. This is why I feel there is a case to be made.

But that's why the NFL has the right to license people to use the names and logos. Without the real life connection, the games flop. The video game companies use the NFL to make their money, so they should have to pay for that right. Before the exclusive licenses, there were still licenses. It's just that now they're bidding to have the right to corner the market.

It's easy to confuse it with a monopoly, because most laymen believe that "cornering the market," or "cutting out competition" automatically equals monopoly. But there's an important difference to be made in legal exclusive licensing and monopolies, and that's what I've been trying to convey.

 

[fannypack]

I've read the case is set to be heard in January of 2010. It's going to be really interesting.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

A Cowboys/Titans Super Bowl is as close as we'll get to the Cowboys/Oilers Super Bowl we should've seen in 1993.

 

[PBJTime]

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.

By definition, it is a monopoly, just a legal one (and that may change.) Whether or not the term coincides with your legal jargon is beyond my scope, but I know I have Merriam-Webster to fall back on.

I also don't think you ever answered my question, which is the real crux. Would competition to EA be a good thing for the consumer?

 

[NextGenBoys]

All I know is Ian looks almost identical to Romo with a hat on.

 

[PBJTime]

It's not merely semantics.

There's a definite and very important legal distinction here that Pep is endeavoring to explain.

I think his "legal" definition of monopoly differs from Merriam-Webster's. I am no lawyer, and I know terms and definitions can differ depending on your profession, but I know what I read in the dictionary, and it applies here.

For example, the word "theory" to the general public means something completely different to a scientist.

This may just be a case of speaking a different language. Lawyer-speak is a very confusing thing. But hey, that's what they're trained to do. By the time it's all said and done, the waters are so muddied, that you don't even know what you were arguing about.

 

[PBJTime]

I may be dishonest, but not intellectually so.

I still maintain that you know what I'm talking about but continue to debate for the sake of debating...to hone your skills maybe?

 

[RainMan]

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

I think what you wrote above is the money point in it all.

You referenced the comparison to the Cowboys exclusively selling Pepsi, and whether Coke had grounds to sue. Maybe not. But if the Pepsis are constantly watered down, fans aren't going to like it. Clearly, there are many fans who think Madden is getting watered down.

But ... the NFL has no reason to take action because the video game continues -- at least as far as I understand -- to sell ridiculous amounts of copies. Why would the NFL not want EA making the game when it's reached the level of hype where there are "Madden Holidays?"

 

[masomenos]

All I know is Ian looks almost identical to Romo with a hat on.

:laugh2:

I thought the same thing.

 

[peplaw06]

By definition, it is a monopoly, just a legal one (and that may change.) Whether or not the term coincides with your legal jargon is beyond my scope, but I know I have Merriam-Webster to fall back on.

I don't think Merriam-Webster would represent you in an Anti-trust violation case.

I also don't think you ever answered my question, which is the real crux. Would competition to EA be a good thing for the consumer?

I answered it as best as I could given the question.

 

[peplaw06]

I still maintain that you know what I'm talking about but continue to debate for the sake of debating...to hone your skills maybe?

I know exactly what you're talking about. You have a fundamental misunderstanding about the two terms.

 

[peplaw06]

I think what you wrote above is the money point in it all.

You referenced the comparison to the Cowboys exclusively selling Pepsi, and whether Coke had grounds to sue. Maybe not. But if the Pepsis are constantly watered down, fans aren't going to like it. Clearly, there are many fans who think Madden is getting watered down.

But ... the NFL has no reason to take action because the video game continues -- at least as far as I understand -- to sell ridiculous amounts of copies. Why would the NFL not want EA making the game when it's reached the level of hype where there are "Madden Holidays?"

You brought it all together better than I could. Thank you.

 

[PBJTime]

I don't think Merriam-Webster would represent you in an Anti-trust violation case.

So, you're saying you disagree with the dictionary? Now that's priceless!

I answered it as best as I could given the question.

You are purposely avoiding the question by posting this response, full of it's own questions:

"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."

You passed it off by saying the consumer is fickle. I'd love to poll people and see just how many think that EA should be the only entity involved with selling an NFL licensed football game.

Here's my point. You know full well that competition would be good for the consumer in this case. In fact, I can't think of a case where competition between products isn't good. You choose to argue against what you know to be right (if you don't believe competition is good for the consumer, you are ignorant, imo) for the sake of arguing.

The fact that the consumer hasn't stopped purchasing the only licensed football game available doesn't prove a point that they don't want more options or competition. Remember the price drop a few years ago because of competition? Tell me that was a bad thing, please.

I'm sure you will continue to deflect and debate your semantics, all the while denying what the rest of the logical world realizes as a reference, the dictionary. I'm sure you will argue 'till you're blue in the face that this is not a monopoly...and ignore the actual stated definition of the word. Whether you want to admit it or not, EA has a monopoly on NFL licensed football games. They are the only seller. There are no others. That is a stated definition of monopoly. Twist that how you want, but you wont change the fact.

I will save this thread for the day that the case is decided against EA. Don't be surprised if you hear about this again next year. Untill then, I'll be licking my chops.

 

[masomenos]

I will save this thread for the day that the case is decided against EA. Don't be surprised if you hear about this again next year. Untill then, I'll be licking my chops.

You'll be saving this thread for a long time then. So, while you may be licking your chops, the only thing that you'll be eating is crow.