This is what everyone has been saying for ages. EA has a monopoly on sports. Yeah, the competition can crank out a better football game, but unless its got their favorite NFL teams, no one cares.
I agree totally, I think that it is terrible that EA has a signed agreement with the NFL to make games and not let anyone else have access to them! It is also a disgrace that Sony have an agreement that stops Xbox users playing Metal Gear Solid and Little Big Planet. It's terrible that the Yankees buy all the good players so no one else can win the World Series and how dare the NFL sign an exclusive deal with Reebok to have their shirts in "every locker".
An exclusivity agreement with a brand is not creating a monopoly. 2K can make as many football games as they like without the branding. Brands don't necessarily sell games. Gameplay does. If you *need* a license to compete then you just aren't good enough.
Do Criterion cry to the courts because they don't have licensed cars? No. They just make a great game and watch it sell.
Well, here's the counterpoint: how many gamers go out and beef up on anti-trust law?
Or, rather that part where the trial "bogs down into legalese that will appeal only to attorneys," to quote GamePolitics, is the important part. It's a lawsuit. That's like writing "I don't understand what it was that Kotaku was talking about in its review about 'gameplay' or 'story,' but it used two colors in its review text, and I think that's pretty interesting."
My point is that we can't attack their lack of knowledge without questioning our own.
But I take your point. I mean, I can cite off the top of my head at least four cases where a court totally mishandled games because it didn't understand, and at least six more where the law got mangled in the process.
But, first off, we're not talking about lawmakers, we're talking about the courts. Three branches of government, remember? The men in black only interpret law.
And, most of the time, that law isn't video game specific...and thankfully so. Targeted legislation comes into play when the special interests have taken over. The point of law as an idea is to give rules general applications.
Most of this is an anti-trust question. That's doesn't have a thing to do with games as games, even if the result affects games.
[Sparing comments on actual tactics & judicial humor].
@ShadowOdin a.k.a. Kinjinson: Put it on the Wii, use the Balance Board as well. Feet must be placed on the board to ensure you have the right weight and aren't standing or such. It could come with 10 channels you could surf through with the Wiimote, you have to change every 1/2 hour however otherwise the game assumes you are cheating by faking out the Balance Board.
There can be leaderboards as well! Who does it the longest, who flips the most channel in a day, etc. Could be amazing....
I'd play it, finally a game I can be in the top of the leaderboards on!
As much as I would love to see the NFL monopoly overturned, I have trouble seeing the deal as breaking any law. Many developers and systems benefit from exclusive deals. That's kinda the point -- you pay the money for the benefit of being the sole provider of some desired IP. 2K didn't bid enough when the NFL/PA license was up for sale, and the company's submitting of a bid to the rights only signals that it, too, desired the same outcome, only in its benefit, of course.
Its a little sketchy in my mind in how this can play out in the favor of the gaming community because since both the judge and the lawyer have no experience with current video games, their judgment, from what the excerpt showed, would simply be based around graphics. The reason why NFL2K was a beloved games, especially the last game, was that it only cost $20. It was a quality title at an extremely fair price. Madden couldn't compete because their product cost over twice as much and was of lower quality, gameplay wise. Since this trial isn't for a few months, I can see where both the judge and the lawyers can become well versed in what made NFL2K a better game than Madden.
@Killer_WaLrUs: Wrong. NFL2K5 only cost $20. All other releases prior to that were regular priced games. The $20 MSRP was a last ditch effort to steal some of the Madden fans away from EA's product. 2K's NFL offerings were typically well received with many stating it was the superior product for many of the years the franchise existed.
@Killer_WaLrUs: That comment is only made directly by Paynter. Note also that interpreting like that actually works contrary to his overall argument in the case (that the quality derives from the NFL being the NFL).
I can also say that, having read various video game cases, the courts do frequently understand what they're talking about. But I really don't think this is much of that sort of situation.
To no small extent, the differences in the quality aren't terribly relevant for the suit, at least as I read it...at least not quality how gamers would understand the term. And, really, if it came down to that, yes, the court would likely call in gamers to talk about it, rather than self-educate.
Oh darn! I lost at my own video game! I need to go seek comfort in my PGA championships, insanely hot wife, and millions of dollars in endorsement deals...
@Mister Jack: you posted that one minute too early. you're supposed to wait for my inane post first before you comment, so you don't accidentally steal my idea from thousands of miles away.
i'll be talking to my solicitors about a possible lawsuit. prepare yo-self fool
"In unrelated news, Mr. Ward was viciously attacked by an unknown assailant in the parking lot after the event. He is expected to make a full recovery after surgery to remove a nine iron from the base of his spine."
Yeah, Steelers won, but they didn't deserve it. I put my money on Steelers (and happily walked away with cash), but they really didn't deserve it the way they were acting and responding to the Cardinals. C'mon, really. How many "Unsportsmanlike conducts" will your team have in a game? How many damn flags will you get for personal fouls?
Game well played... but not with a trace of humility.
@Mike918: That's the one thing I love about being a Lions fan, we haven't had promise since 1997. Well, there was that '08 season 6-2 start, but even I called that epic collapse.
Yeah, it must have predicted the horrid reffing. this is twice now in 4 years that the Steelers have won a SB and gotten a majority of the close calls.
@I_Like_Rabbits: So you're saying that those penalties against the Cards didn't happen? The ones that we could all see with multiple angles of view? Horrid reffing yes, but don't act like it was biased. The Cardinals shot themselves in the foot throwing that pick at the end of the half and giving up a hundred yards in penalties.
@OUberLord: @Kaltori: You can't really respond to a guy that's arguing a team lost due to officiating by saying 'they gave up too many penalties'. It's like responding to someone that believes in the Yeti with "They Yeti does not exist."
@Omnimon: Looks to me like his argument was that the Steelers "got more calls to go their way" than the Cardinals. The Cardinals were penalized for like 100 yards, cut that in half and you get rid of the blatantly obvious fouls that they were called on.
That still leaves over 50 yards in penalties that you can blame on "close calls that the Cardinals got screwed on", "letting the Steelers win". He was arguing that the Steelers won because "all the close calls went their way", I was merely pointing out that the Cardinals lost because "they had over 100 yards of penalty yards assessed against them" which in my opinion is unacceptable if you want to win the SuperBowl.
You can try to say that this doesn't apply to the argument that "the refs sucked and only called fouls on the Cardinals", but my OPINION is that sure you could blame half of their lost yards on "bad calls (which weren't THAT bad)" but what about the other 50 yards or so from flagrant fouls? I suppose those don't count since they support my side and go against what you said.
@Kaltori: No, those count. I'm saying that half of the penalty yards called against a team in the Super Bowl shouldn't be able to be chalked up to questionable officiating.
02/19/09
02/19/09
An exclusivity agreement with a brand is not creating a monopoly. 2K can make as many football games as they like without the branding. Brands don't necessarily sell games. Gameplay does. If you *need* a license to compete then you just aren't good enough.
Do Criterion cry to the courts because they don't have licensed cars? No. They just make a great game and watch it sell.
02/19/09
Or, rather that part where the trial "bogs down into legalese that will appeal only to attorneys," to quote GamePolitics, is the important part. It's a lawsuit. That's like writing "I don't understand what it was that Kotaku was talking about in its review about 'gameplay' or 'story,' but it used two colors in its review text, and I think that's pretty interesting."
My point is that we can't attack their lack of knowledge without questioning our own.
But I take your point. I mean, I can cite off the top of my head at least four cases where a court totally mishandled games because it didn't understand, and at least six more where the law got mangled in the process.
But, first off, we're not talking about lawmakers, we're talking about the courts. Three branches of government, remember? The men in black only interpret law.
And, most of the time, that law isn't video game specific...and thankfully so. Targeted legislation comes into play when the special interests have taken over. The point of law as an idea is to give rules general applications.
Most of this is an anti-trust question. That's doesn't have a thing to do with games as games, even if the result affects games.
[Sparing comments on actual tactics & judicial humor].
02/18/09
Extreme couchpotatoing
02/18/09
There can be leaderboards as well! Who does it the longest, who flips the most channel in a day, etc. Could be amazing....
I'd play it, finally a game I can be in the top of the leaderboards on!
02/19/09
02/18/09
02/18/09
02/18/09
02/18/09
I can also say that, having read various video game cases, the courts do frequently understand what they're talking about. But I really don't think this is much of that sort of situation.
To no small extent, the differences in the quality aren't terribly relevant for the suit, at least as I read it...at least not quality how gamers would understand the term. And, really, if it came down to that, yes, the court would likely call in gamers to talk about it, rather than self-educate.
02/18/09
02/18/09
02/12/09
02/12/09
02/12/09
i'll be talking to my solicitors about a possible lawsuit. prepare yo-self fool
02/12/09
02/12/09
02/12/09
45 minutes of commercials and 10 minutes of actual show. I wonder if this will be "Powered by Mountain Dew!!!"
It sounds like one giant EA commercial.
02/02/09
Game well played... but not with a trace of humility.
02/02/09
02/02/09
02/02/09
02/02/09
02/08/09
02/02/09
That's a trend.
02/02/09
02/02/09
Debate: You're doing it wrong.
02/02/09
That still leaves over 50 yards in penalties that you can blame on "close calls that the Cardinals got screwed on", "letting the Steelers win". He was arguing that the Steelers won because "all the close calls went their way", I was merely pointing out that the Cardinals lost because "they had over 100 yards of penalty yards assessed against them" which in my opinion is unacceptable if you want to win the SuperBowl.
You can try to say that this doesn't apply to the argument that "the refs sucked and only called fouls on the Cardinals", but my OPINION is that sure you could blame half of their lost yards on "bad calls (which weren't THAT bad)" but what about the other 50 yards or so from flagrant fouls? I suppose those don't count since they support my side and go against what you said.
02/08/09
Then again, I'm a Lions fan, so who knows.