Kotaku 
Enter your username and password.
Denver, 2:55 PM
Fri Dec 11
53 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip us:
Editor-In-Chief:
Brian Crecente
| AIM | Twitter
Deputy Editor:
Stephen Totilo
| AIM | Twitter
Senior Editor:
Michael McWhertor
| AIM | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor, Japan:
Brian Ashcraft
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, East Coast:
Michael Fahey
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, Oceania:
Luke Plunkett
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, Weekends:
Owen Good
| AIM | Twitter
Correspondent, San Francisco:
AJ Glasser
| AIM | Twitter
Columnist:
Leigh Alexander
Columnist:
Tim Rogers
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
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