Really? That monopoly has never cost this gamer a single penny, seeing as how I've never owned or played one. When I was at EA back in '06-'07 I thought about picking one up, but ultimately decided against it. I already had a small pile of EA titles that I'll probably never get around to playing. I did pick up a copy of Madden Wii for a friend, however, who seems to have enjoyed it.
This guy has no case. Non-collector's editions of madden games sell at $60, just like every contemporary game. And while the NFL label greatly enhances the chances of a football game's sales, it's not a requirement for a game to be published. 2K Games themselves released a non-licensed game in 2008, and Midway has released three Blitz games without the NFL license. Gamers who care about gameplay would probably not be affected by the license, or rather they shouldn't be. It's about the game, not the name. Just because most of Madden's audience is NOT gamers doesn't mean EA and the NFL have done anything wrong. The NFL's trademarks are theirs to license out as they see fit.
Remember, 2K also has a similar arrangement with Major leage Baseball, though it's structured to play nice with the console makers. Funny how no one is giving 2K a hard time, despite there having been a sizeable fan base for EA's baseball games beforehand.
First of all, there is nothing wrong with a monopoly because they never get as bad as people envision them getting. Given certain postulates, such as all NFL football players ceding their individual name rights to the NFL, then there is nothing wrong with what EA is doing. This was a voluntary agreement between the NFL and EA, and no ill-conceived, overreaching anti-trust legislation should get in the way of their private business transaction.
The real problem is with the government's involvement is sports at all. It should not have the ability to regulate football leagues and their brand names, thereby giving certain leagues advantages over others purely because the government, or specific politicians, favors them for whatever reason. I do not think many disagree with this. The question is, do you balance the system by adding regulation to the less regulated, or by removing regulation from the more regulated?
The only fair and practical answer is to remove all regulations not directly concerned with protecting property rights. Sports and all of their gaming derivatives should be exclusively under the providence of the private sector.
Also, this really is not all that different from any other gaming IP. EA does not own football, just the rights to the NFL's brand name. Suppose you really like Mass Effect but you think the narrative is lacking. Too bad, no one else can make a Mass Effect game with a better story, only EA can, and if it chooses not to, then there is nothing anyone should be able to force them to do, but of course you should be permitted to make suggestions, insult, boycott and protest to put enough societal or monetary pressure on the company to do whatever it is you want, and maybe it will heed the call.
This is the same situation that Madden is in. They have the right to the name because the NFL sold it to them. It is no different than if EA sold the Mass Effect name to someone else. If you say that it is unfair, realize that you advocate destroying the incentives that cause people to risk creating IPs like Mass Effect and organizations like the NFL in the first place. You may say that the NFL would have been created anyway, and that they should hardly complain about losing just one of many sources of their profits, and one that was not originally intended at that! The truest description of that idea, though, is the gradual chipping away of all the aspects that incentivize the creation of the things that we love and have yet to love.
Of course there is also the more basic, fundamental facet of this argument: the morality of the concept. I hold that it is morally right that an individual have the ability to sell exclusive rights to his intellectual property or brand to whomever he so desires. In this case it is slightly different however, as it is an organization selling the whole of its members' brands, but if they willingly agree to this when joining the organization, and there is no force involved, then it is essentially the same act.
Without the NFL name behind it, I'm not going to buy a football game, no matter how good it is. From the days of Blitz, I've always enjoyed non-Madden games. I've found them to be too boring for me and 2K does bring some excitement, but not enough without the big team names and players.
The sport itself is good, but not playing my favorite players is kindof a deal breaker.
I did buy a Madden game once and I didn't enjoy it. Now, even though I want a football game, I don't buy because I think that this specific monopoly is wrong and I don't really want to waste my money on a game i don't really feel a connection to in terms of the players themselves. It really is a detriment to the brand by making this deal. I'm sure EA would be kicking and screaming if 2K came up with a deal with Fifa or the NHL. I would hope that they would do that, just to show EA up.
It's different than Halo being 'exclusive' to a console because Halo is a piece of intellectual property. I could buy another (better) game since they don't monopolize the shooter industry, but if shooters with guns that resembled real ones could only be sold under the MS branding, meaning that all other shooters had to use paintball guns... It would lose something.
@Last_Raven: But the NFL isn't American Football, it's just a league that is based on the American Football rules. There are other football leagues such as the CFL and NCAAF--as a matter of fact, one is starting up this year. So, no, it's not a monopoly.
@Trey: It's a de facto monopoly though. The NFL is far and away the most prominent football league in the world. By granting EA games exclusive license to the names and likenesses of the players, they created the monopoly. It does feel weird not being able to play as my favorite players.
That's kindof like saying that you could make a game based on the Cape Cod Baseball league if the MLB decided to go exclusive. Of course very few (if any) people would want it.
Plus, D-League isn't my cup of tea. I really don't think anyone would say that the Pawtucket Red Sox or the Sea Dogs are anywhere as desirable as the actual Red Sox and you're not going to make a living off of them.
PS. 4 teams does not make a league and it will be like 10 years before the UFL catches on. It'll end up probably being a AAA league or D League for the NFL when all is said and done.
Calling NFL football based on football rules is like saying baseball is based on cricket rules. The CFL and Euros have a number of different rules (ie. a rouge) and different play styles that would probably not be as appealing to an American audience.
PPS. It's football. Just football. As soccer is just soccer.
@Last_Raven: No. The NFL is not a sport, it's a league. American Football is the sport, one of which the CFL is a league in as well.
Also, seeing as I'm not a baseball fan, I'd play an arcadey version based on the sport baseball (I don't care if the players and teams in the game are licensed or not) than a sim game such as MLB. A license is a huge deal, but it isn't the sole determining factor in the interest of a game compared to another.
@your PPS: a lot of folks call football what we call soccer. So the correct term would be American Football, so everyone gets my drift.
Whoever's actually bothering to call this a 'monopoly' is a fucking idiot. They don't have exclusive rights to football, just the NFL. That's like saying that Microsoft has a monopoly over Halo games, or that Valve has a monopoly over Half life games.
Um, yeah. 2k tried to go the unlicensed route last year, or did you not hear? That was an abysmal failure. Don't kid yourself...it's a fucking monopoly. No NFL license, no sale as far as Joe Six Pack goes.
@ReconToaster.: It's cute how you pretend any other football really matters. I agree that they don't really have a monopoly. If they were the only ones making football games, then yeah.
@ReconToaster.: Because we all know that people want to spend money playing as teams that don't exist.
Also, I find it funny that you compare EA's monopoly over the NFL to games which are owned by companies because they ACTUALLY created the series. What has EA done to deserve the NFL license? They had a fat wad of cash, that's what.
@ReconToaster.: Monopoly, as defined by Dictionary.com:
Exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices.
The second part, "a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices," brings up a red flag in this case.
Not to mention slapping "NFL" on just about anything football related is guaranteed to sell more than one without it. Why would anyone want to play a football game with imaginary players? It's like buying a movie-based game with none of the actual characters in it. It just doesn't make any sense.
@ReconToaster.: The real root of the problem, and why such an issue can reach the courts, is that Congress granted the major sports leagues monopoly power a long time ago. Yes, it's possible to form another football league, but Congress allows the NFL to compete in ways that would be illegal in most types of business, and which make competition, while legal, highly impractical. Imagine if Microsoft were allowed to have a hiring mechanism modeled after the NFL draft. It would be a clear anti-trust violation. So because the NFL is a regulated monopoly, giving one company their license confers or transfers a de facto monopoly power. It is debatable whether Congress intended this effect or ability, and that is why the issue would be subject to court review.
@(zombie) buddhathing: It is completely up to the college players coming out of college to go to the NFL. It's not like the college, or the NFL forces them to. The NFL Draft is basically a contract laden, roundabout way of a talented young man to get into the league based on his inherent skill in college.
The difference between this and other rights buying examples is that EA bought the rights of the NFL to increase their per unit profit. Because the public is paying more overall due to the competition being blocked, this is a monopoly.
It is different than if you buy the "Iron Man Movie" rights. If that is the case other action games are only impacted a small amount, and could never prove any substantial loss or extra cost burden on the public due to the rights being purchased. With the NFL trademarks being worth a much higher price tag it makes it a different game altogether because a manipulation of prices can exist. Not just a maniupulation of prices, but a substantial one.
@SuperTongue: Except that has no bearing on this case. The NFL owns the right to its license. I'm sure developers would love to reap the sales from slapping Mario in their platformers, but Nintendo owns the license. Demanding how and when a company may use its license would set a scary precedent, and that will never happen since this case is going nowhere.
Yeah, it stinks, but this is no monopoly, certainly not by any economic nor legal definition. I miss NFL2K as much as anyone else, but as much as I'd love to see a new release, this is not the way to do it. 2K Sports sought out the same license for same purpose but underbid EA. That's all there is to it.
I also take issue with this part of the article:
He argues that while the 2K games were around (which were much cheaper than Madden), EA (and retailers) were forced to lower the price for a copy of Madden in order to compete.
Only NFL2K5, the last game released in the series, was cheaper than Madden. Madden has not increased in price due to its sole possession of the NFL license but rather the increase all major releases have see going from last generation to the current one.
@Trey: Here's the thing though. The teams are each separate businesses. If a talented player were allowed to pit the businesses against each other, they would take home more money. But there is no competition, and therefore a monopoly, because the NFL, which is ostensibly not-for-profit and therefore tax exempt, has created the draft, set contract terms, and can then 'trade' these young men. They are controlling their costs by colluding. For most businesses, that would be illegal.
@(zombie) buddhathing: But the NFL has anti-trust exemption from the federal government. That is what makes this more troublesome is the abuse the NFL puts upon the consumer while under this protection.
@Javert: If you look a bit further up the thread, that was my original point. I just used the draft as an example of the NFL's monopolistic powers. So my comment was a narrow response to Trey about the draft.
@(zombie) buddhathing: It's a private conglomerate though, and these players are merely assets toward a yearly goal: winning the Super Bowl and garnering the notoriety and profit that comes with it.
There is competition, the NFL is just the muchpreferred league because of its history. All the major sports have that inherent advantage.
The last NFL game I bought was 2K5, and even I'm taking these numbers with a grain of salt. Granted, the NFL license is by far the biggest in the US, but in 2009...
*There are two NHL games (EA's 2009 and 2K9). On the PS3 and 360, both launched at $60.
*There are two MLB games on the PS3 (2K9 and '09 The Show). Both launched at $60.
*There are two NBA games on the 360 (Live 2009 and 2K9) and a third on the PS3 ('09 The Life). All three launched at $60.
Even with 2K5's cut to $20, I think any cost reduction would've gone away with the leap to the current gen. The games might be $50, but no way they would be $30 now.
@TheBaldOneMpls: "The games might be $50, but no way they would be $30 now."
Yes way.
The reason that 2K's games were cheaper for that short period is because they didn't start fresh. They kept the controls and engine essentially the same, instead of redoing them like EA seems to every year.
The same scenario now still wouldn't be far-fetched - develop the game, release it at full price one year, and then one or two years down the road, cut out as much new development as you can and cut the price accordingly.
I don't care what you say - football doesn't change that much from year to year.
Doesn't matter, you can throw as many numbers as you want at these madden freaks, they will never understand logic. They will simply purchase the same game over and over again until the end of time. Its worse than a crack addiction
@Mike Newlad: I bought Madden 96 for the N64, and haven't bought one since. No reason really. I agree with you that the game IS different every year, because of the new rosters for each team. But, it's still two teams playing football. The gameplay doesn't change much, but anyone who says 08 and 09 are identical don't know what they're talking about.
@e-friend's comments are unworthy: Couldn't you say that about pretty much every game. Halo is just a game where people shoot each other, Final Fantasy is a game where you level up characters and fight, GT5 is just another racing game, etc.
The subtle differences (which are often improvements) are what most of us look forward to.
I can't wait for FIFA 2010 and I can't wait to see what comes out of ProEvo this year either. I play a football game all year round and get frustrated with things all year round. When IGN (I think it was IGN anyway) did there sneak preview on FIFA 2010, they said it ruined 2009 for them because now they have played a game that is superior to 2009 game play wise.
@EVILSTUART: Yeah, I can't remember games being cheaper. Even if it has risen, surely inflation counts for something. 5 years ago a Milky Way chocolate bar was 15p now it is 23p that's more than a 50% hike - are they going to blame that on the downfall of the Taz bar?
The only time I remember the price of games going up was in the first month of the PS3 and even then a quick shop around would get me a normal price tag.
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.
07/15/09
07/14/09
Remember, 2K also has a similar arrangement with Major leage Baseball, though it's structured to play nice with the console makers. Funny how no one is giving 2K a hard time, despite there having been a sizeable fan base for EA's baseball games beforehand.
07/14/09
The real problem is with the government's involvement is sports at all. It should not have the ability to regulate football leagues and their brand names, thereby giving certain leagues advantages over others purely because the government, or specific politicians, favors them for whatever reason. I do not think many disagree with this. The question is, do you balance the system by adding regulation to the less regulated, or by removing regulation from the more regulated?
The only fair and practical answer is to remove all regulations not directly concerned with protecting property rights. Sports and all of their gaming derivatives should be exclusively under the providence of the private sector.
Also, this really is not all that different from any other gaming IP. EA does not own football, just the rights to the NFL's brand name. Suppose you really like Mass Effect but you think the narrative is lacking. Too bad, no one else can make a Mass Effect game with a better story, only EA can, and if it chooses not to, then there is nothing anyone should be able to force them to do, but of course you should be permitted to make suggestions, insult, boycott and protest to put enough societal or monetary pressure on the company to do whatever it is you want, and maybe it will heed the call.
This is the same situation that Madden is in. They have the right to the name because the NFL sold it to them. It is no different than if EA sold the Mass Effect name to someone else. If you say that it is unfair, realize that you advocate destroying the incentives that cause people to risk creating IPs like Mass Effect and organizations like the NFL in the first place. You may say that the NFL would have been created anyway, and that they should hardly complain about losing just one of many sources of their profits, and one that was not originally intended at that! The truest description of that idea, though, is the gradual chipping away of all the aspects that incentivize the creation of the things that we love and have yet to love.
Of course there is also the more basic, fundamental facet of this argument: the morality of the concept. I hold that it is morally right that an individual have the ability to sell exclusive rights to his intellectual property or brand to whomever he so desires. In this case it is slightly different however, as it is an organization selling the whole of its members' brands, but if they willingly agree to this when joining the organization, and there is no force involved, then it is essentially the same act.
07/14/09
The sport itself is good, but not playing my favorite players is kindof a deal breaker.
I did buy a Madden game once and I didn't enjoy it. Now, even though I want a football game, I don't buy because I think that this specific monopoly is wrong and I don't really want to waste my money on a game i don't really feel a connection to in terms of the players themselves. It really is a detriment to the brand by making this deal. I'm sure EA would be kicking and screaming if 2K came up with a deal with Fifa or the NHL. I would hope that they would do that, just to show EA up.
It's different than Halo being 'exclusive' to a console because Halo is a piece of intellectual property. I could buy another (better) game since they don't monopolize the shooter industry, but if shooters with guns that resembled real ones could only be sold under the MS branding, meaning that all other shooters had to use paintball guns... It would lose something.
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/15/09
That's kindof like saying that you could make a game based on the Cape Cod Baseball league if the MLB decided to go exclusive. Of course very few (if any) people would want it.
Plus, D-League isn't my cup of tea. I really don't think anyone would say that the Pawtucket Red Sox or the Sea Dogs are anywhere as desirable as the actual Red Sox and you're not going to make a living off of them.
PS. 4 teams does not make a league and it will be like 10 years before the UFL catches on. It'll end up probably being a AAA league or D League for the NFL when all is said and done.
Calling NFL football based on football rules is like saying baseball is based on cricket rules. The CFL and Euros have a number of different rules (ie. a rouge) and different play styles that would probably not be as appealing to an American audience.
PPS. It's football. Just football. As soccer is just soccer.
07/15/09
Also, seeing as I'm not a baseball fan, I'd play an arcadey version based on the sport baseball (I don't care if the players and teams in the game are licensed or not) than a sim game such as MLB. A license is a huge deal, but it isn't the sole determining factor in the interest of a game compared to another.
@your PPS: a lot of folks call football what we call soccer. So the correct term would be American Football, so everyone gets my drift.
07/14/09
How did this make it into courts?
07/14/09
Um, yeah. 2k tried to go the unlicensed route last year, or did you not hear? That was an abysmal failure. Don't kid yourself...it's a fucking monopoly. No NFL license, no sale as far as Joe Six Pack goes.
07/14/09
Whatever, may the NFL rot in hell.
07/14/09
Also, I find it funny that you compare EA's monopoly over the NFL to games which are owned by companies because they ACTUALLY created the series. What has EA done to deserve the NFL license? They had a fat wad of cash, that's what.
07/14/09
Anything else is just filler until the next NFL game.
07/14/09
Exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices.
The second part, "a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices," brings up a red flag in this case.
Not to mention slapping "NFL" on just about anything football related is guaranteed to sell more than one without it. Why would anyone want to play a football game with imaginary players? It's like buying a movie-based game with none of the actual characters in it. It just doesn't make any sense.
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
Seriously - Good Comment
Someone star this man.
The difference between this and other rights buying examples is that EA bought the rights of the NFL to increase their per unit profit. Because the public is paying more overall due to the competition being blocked, this is a monopoly.
It is different than if you buy the "Iron Man Movie" rights. If that is the case other action games are only impacted a small amount, and could never prove any substantial loss or extra cost burden on the public due to the rights being purchased. With the NFL trademarks being worth a much higher price tag it makes it a different game altogether because a manipulation of prices can exist. Not just a maniupulation of prices, but a substantial one.
07/14/09
Yeah, it stinks, but this is no monopoly, certainly not by any economic nor legal definition. I miss NFL2K as much as anyone else, but as much as I'd love to see a new release, this is not the way to do it. 2K Sports sought out the same license for same purpose but underbid EA. That's all there is to it.
I also take issue with this part of the article:
He argues that while the 2K games were around (which were much cheaper than Madden), EA (and retailers) were forced to lower the price for a copy of Madden in order to compete.
Only NFL2K5, the last game released in the series, was cheaper than Madden. Madden has not increased in price due to its sole possession of the NFL license but rather the increase all major releases have see going from last generation to the current one.
07/14/09
Really? Most people I come across care far more about honest, passionate, college football than the likes of the NFL.
07/15/09
07/15/09
07/15/09
07/15/09
There is competition, the NFL is just the muchpreferred league because of its history. All the major sports have that inherent advantage.
07/14/09
*There are two NHL games (EA's 2009 and 2K9). On the PS3 and 360, both launched at $60.
*There are two MLB games on the PS3 (2K9 and '09 The Show). Both launched at $60.
*There are two NBA games on the 360 (Live 2009 and 2K9) and a third on the PS3 ('09 The Life). All three launched at $60.
Even with 2K5's cut to $20, I think any cost reduction would've gone away with the leap to the current gen. The games might be $50, but no way they would be $30 now.
07/15/09
Yes way.
The reason that 2K's games were cheaper for that short period is because they didn't start fresh. They kept the controls and engine essentially the same, instead of redoing them like EA seems to every year.
The same scenario now still wouldn't be far-fetched - develop the game, release it at full price one year, and then one or two years down the road, cut out as much new development as you can and cut the price accordingly.
I don't care what you say - football doesn't change that much from year to year.
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/15/09
The subtle differences (which are often improvements) are what most of us look forward to.
I can't wait for FIFA 2010 and I can't wait to see what comes out of ProEvo this year either. I play a football game all year round and get frustrated with things all year round. When IGN (I think it was IGN anyway) did there sneak preview on FIFA 2010, they said it ruined 2009 for them because now they have played a game that is superior to 2009 game play wise.
07/14/09
07/14/09
The only time I remember the price of games going up was in the first month of the PS3 and even then a quick shop around would get me a normal price tag.
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