EA Enters into Exclusive Agreements with NFL and PLAYERS INC

[jbooma]

Originally posted by TK-IV II I

Wait till Jbooma see's this.

this doesn't make any sense, you always want competition, and isn't the madden name done next year?

[manichispanic]

Originally posted by beast_of_burdens

sega can still make good quality games without the nfl lisence. take the winning eleven a.k.a pro evolution soccer series from konami. they don't have any of the actual names of teams or players (because they belong to FIFA and EA) but they still make superior games to EA. It's all about the gameplay, and aslong as Sega put in the effort to make a quality product than people will buy it. I like the winning eleven series too cause it pokes fun at not having the official lisences so it can be creative and funny when choosing names of teams and players. usually for players its a letter off or an exageration of their name. and for naming club teams they just call them by their nickname. so instead of the redskins they'd be called the skins or something. its not totally bad news, hopefully sega can survive from this cause i enjoy their games, and competition breeds quality.

Id doesnt matter anyways cause if they put up a game thats superior to madden, there are always ways to renames players/teams/logos on your system. Look at what www.ps2rosters.com did to the sports games over the last couple seasons. For college, they put out rosters with real names on the players i.e Antrell Rolle #6, as supposed to CB #9, also with regular sports games they put in roster updates.

[jbooma]

Actually EA left one stone unturned:

"The agreements do not include exclusive rights to other types of games or games accessible from the Internet or wireless devices, including cellular phones. "

Isn't Sega and Microsoft working on games that you buy online not using a cartrige??

This is the future of gaming anyway and the NFL was aware of it.

[codeorama]

Whew, i thought you had died Jbooma....

LOL...

EA is smart, they have the bucks, If I were them, I would do the same thing, now they have no competition.

I hope they take the presentation features of ESPN football and improve Madden for next year.

[jbooma]

Originally posted by codeorama

Whew, i thought you had died Jbooma....

LOL...

EA is smart, they have the bucks, If I were them, I would do the same thing, now they have no competition.

I hope they take the presentation features of ESPN football and improve Madden for next year.

I agree, if they combine both games you have the best football game ever, however I think Sega and Microsoft will have the final laugh when they create a totally online game which will be able to have the NFL license

At least I am creating one now :cool:

[DaFunky1]

Originally posted by TankRizzo

... If you don't like it don't buy the game. It's that simple....

What the NFL has done is alienate those of us who would buy from another company that we like. I have played the 2K series from the Dreamcast to 2K5 on my Xbox. I will not pay $50.00 to buy an EA game to be Ramsey, Portis, or any other Redskin.

If the NFL wants to only deal with EA, that is their choice, and as you said "If you don't like it don't buy the game". As I said above, I won't be buying the game.

I don't know if it quite qualifies as anit-trust what EA, the NFL, and NFLPA did, but it definitely limits the market and creates a monopoly on NFL licensed games. Ultimately it hurts the consumer.

Peace

[TankRizzo]

Originally posted by DaFunky1

I don't know if it quite qualifies as anit-trust what EA, the NFL, and NFLPA did, but it definitely limits the market and creates a monopoly on NFL licensed games. Ultimately it hurts the consumer.

Peace

They have signed an exclusive deal with the NFL. They were in a bidding war for it as well, so Sega/989 and MS would have done the same exact thing had they deemed it worth the money. EA does not have a monopoly on football video games, plays etc.

I agree, I do not like the deal at all and I'm a huge EA fan. But I think this is a bigger opportunity for the other game makers out there to step it up a notch and really make a better game without having to concentrate on appeasing every NFL rule/nitpick.

[iheartskins]

Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin

One problem. EA has no monopoly on software or video games.

THAT would be a case for antitrust.

EA simply has a license. If we start going after exclusive licensing deals in this country, we can kiss ANY semblance of a free society goodbye.

That'd be like you having a character in a movie you developed, have the rights for, and not being able to control video game representations of the storyline.

I don't think it necessarily means EA won't work anymore. It means they'll have the ability to make the perfect game. Remember, there were certain elements they DID NOT have access to.

Not saying this is a good or bad thing, but it has NOTHING to do with antitrust or social policies.

Sorry Ghost, but you are wrong here.

The specific contract signed by EA and the NFL might not have anything to do with social policy but the arguments and responses that people brought up in response to the new contract have a lot to do with antitrust.

When the Sherman and Clayton Act were passed, they were in response to a need for free enterprise with low barriers to entry such that competition would be as fierce as possible without penalizing the best business person for having a solid financial plan--thus if a surviving entity outlasted the competition because of their better business practices, then that would not be per se illegal. See US v. Alcoa. Several of the posts here in response to the contract between EA and the NFL have said that EA is now "not going to innovate their product" or that EA "has no more competition" and that "competition is good." I don't know if you've ever read Alcoa or some of the other seminal antitrust decisions, but they are full of similar concerns: if unchecked, the monopolist won't innovate and they will take advantage of their market power to the detriment of the consumer.

You say that EA has no monopoly on software or video games, that may be true. But bringing a successful monopoly case is all about defining the market. Here, you defined the market quite broadly. But credible expert witnesses could define it differently. If they are working for the lawyers for EA Sports, then they are going to say that the market in question is all video games, or at narrowest all sports games (thus agreeing with you). The expert working for the lawyers trying to break the monopoly are going to define the market as NFL related video games. If that latter of the two defined market is the one that the judge (or jury) adopts as accurate, then there is a monopoly.

I was not saying that this contract created a monopoly--only that people reactions to it were similar to the reactions that created the antitrust law in this country.

[luckydevil]

I’m not worried

If anything SEGA will dramatically improve the game play and the graphics of the series in order to compensate for the loss of the NFL license

In the short term this is a big deal for EA Sports, but in the long term this will backfire.

[KDawg]

No one likes my idea of ESPN taking the Arena Football license?

[The Sir]

Doesn't sound like Sega will have a distributor for their game if they do decide to make a football game.

This afternoon, Take-Two issued the following statement: “While sports games in general are an important part of Take-Two's product diversification strategy, the licensed NFL game we distributed on behalf of Sega this year was not a material contributor to our profitability to date, nor was it expected to be a meaningful contributor in the upcoming year. We remain committed to continued diversification of our product portfolio, including sports.

"We believe that the decisions of the National Football League and PLAYERS INC to grant an exclusive license for videogames do a tremendous disservice to the consumers and sports fans whose funds ultimately support the NFL, by limiting their choices, curbing creativity and almost certainly leading to higher game prices.”

"I really respect them, but the consumer really loses," one analyst told GameSpot. "EA is both evil and really smart."

As for such a deal affecting quality of future football products, EA's vice president of corporate communications Jeff Brown told GameSpot, "The onus is on EA to keep making a better game each year…that's the hurdle you have to clear every year."

[iheartskins]

Originally posted by atlhawksfan

1. "We believe that the decisions of the National Football League and PLAYERS INC to grant an exclusive license for videogames do a tremendous disservice to the consumers and sports fans whose funds ultimately support the NFL, by limiting their choices, curbing creativity and almost certainly leading to higher game prices.”

2. "I really respect them, but the consumer really loses," one analyst told GameSpot. "EA is both evil and really smart."

This is same thing that I was talking about before Ghost. Limited choice, curbing innovations, and higher prices. All of these things are fundamental to antitrust inquires and related to economic policy.

[pr11fan]

Yep, it's basic economics, if I have something nobody else can make, and it's functional enough, why make it great if there is nowhere else to go for what I have, while I'm at it why not charge a little extra for it as well, who is gonna compete with me. It's a shame they really can't combine into one game, as sega's presentation is 10x better that madden's, the actual game itself is slightly better imho, although open to debate, but madden has a much better offseason, why oh why can't they just make one sweet game at a reasonable price.

[Ghost of]

Originally posted by iheartskins

This is same thing that I was talking about before Ghost. Limited choice, curbing innovations, and higher prices. All of these things are fundamental to antitrust inquires and related to economic policy.

Sorry, I'm supposed to listen to an analyst who says that EA is "evil?"

As for the reactions in this thread, I understand where they come from and they may use the same reasoning as that invoked to promote anti-trust laws, but that doesn't actually render them legitimate from a LEGAL perspective.

If a lawyer succeeded in defining the "market" as NFL-related merchandise then property, licensing rights and basically ant contractual agreement between two parties is shot to hell in this country and the death blow to free enterprise has been struck.

I don't understand how you DONT see that.

The NFL and EA can agree to this contract--PERIOD. It may strike fear in the hearts of gamers, but so what? We do not have a "right" to a competitive market in NFL games.

I recall Madden games from 92/93 that were pretty good but had no players, only numbers, no team names.

And much of what is currently believed about 'monopolies' on the macro level of REAL markets is, in fact, untrue. Even Standard during its heyday, I believe controlled less than half the market.

Besides you noting that people's reactions were the same to companies like Standard I am finding it difficult to discern your purpose.

An exclusive license is not exactly a rare thing when it comes to distribution. Hell, only EA has the license for the movie LotR and only Vivendi has the license for non-movie LotR software games.

[iheartskins]

Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin

Sorry, I'm supposed to listen to an analyst who says that EA is "evil?"

As for the reactions in this thread, I understand where they come from and they may use the same reasoning as that invoked to promote anti-trust laws, but that doesn't actually render them legitimate from a LEGAL perspective.

If a lawyer succeeded in defining the "market" as NFL-related merchandise then property, licensing rights and basically ant contractual agreement between two parties is shot to hell in this country and the death blow to free enterprise has been struck.

I don't understand how you DONT see that.

The NFL and EA can agree to this contract--PERIOD. It may strike fear in the hearts of gamers, but so what? We do not have a "right" to a competitive market in NFL games.

I recall Madden games from 92/93 that were pretty good but had no players, only numbers, no team names.

And much of what is currently believed about 'monopolies' on the macro level of REAL markets is, in fact, untrue. Even Standard during its heyday, I believe controlled less than half the market.

Besides you noting that people's reactions were the same to companies like Standard I am finding it difficult to discern your purpose.

An exclusive license is not exactly a rare thing when it comes to distribution. Hell, only EA has the license for the movie LotR and only Vivendi has the license for non-movie LotR software games.

Ghost, you're missing my point again.

Reread what I wrote: "I was not saying that this contract created a monopoly--only that people reactions to it were similar to the reactions that created the antitrust law in this country."

And my initial statement which was: "You guys are all implicitly bringing up the economic and social policy reasons why we have Antitrust law in this country. Pretty interesting, at least to me."

You replied by saying that EA has no monopoly. I never said that they did--in any of my posts.

Then you went on to say that this exclusive contact "Not saying this is a good or bad thing, but it has NOTHING to do with antitrust or social policies."

Here you are definitely wrong. If an exclusive licensing contract comes to be considered a unlawful restraint then it may merit antitrust review under a rule of reason. If you are curious about cases that deal with this very issue, I'll point you to a few: a)Tampa Electric Co. v. Nashville Coal, FTC v. Brown Shoe Co. and c) US Healthcare v. Healthsource, etc.

And of course the opinions expressed on an internet message board are going to be of no legal consequence in an antitrust case.

You say: "If a lawyer succeeded in defining the 'market' as NFL-related merchandise then property, licensing rights and basically ant contractual agreement between two parties is shot to hell in this country and the death blow to free enterprise has been struck."

Again, this is not what I said. I said that if an expert witness defines the market as NFL video games, and the judge or jury agrees, then there is a strong argument that within this narrowly defined market, there is a strong argument for the existence of monopoly power. I never said anything about NFL related merchandise.

Also, explain to me how challenging a potentially monopolistic agreement is a fundamental blow to property, licensing and contractual rights? Also, how is trying to ensure free enterprise by breaking down monopolies, the basic thrust behind most antitrust policy (and if you don't agree then you should read Bork's book on the paradox of antitrust--it's a interesting read), causing a death blow to free enterprise? That just doesn't make sense.

I'm not sure I know what company you are referencing when you say Standard (maybe Oil?), but when one of the first trusts was brought down with Alcoa, they controlled over 90% of the aluminum production in this country.

If it wasn't clear already, my initial purpose was to point out how evident a potential antitrust problem is and how it evokes a response from lots of people--many of whom know nothing about anti-trust law or policy. My second purpose is to try and keep you on track with our discussion.

[Ghost of]

That's a LOT to respond to, my guess is just looking at those case names, you're talking about industries and markets that are FAR broader than NFL video games. This isn't coal or energy in one locality(or cable) this is a very specific license to use names, likenesses, etc for ONE sport.

I don't mind extraneous discussion, I just don't agree. The slice of pie is just too small.

Sure, the emotional reactions are quite similar to those invoked by bars to competition from

Thing is, these same people are more concerned about a video game than about thousands of pages of laws and regulations(mostly the reg part) that bar small business entries to the marketplace and favor larger firms.

Anyone else here want to talk about the cartels formed by medical and bar associations in each state?

Most competitive barriers in the marketplace are introduced by government.

If I have a comic book and I sign a deal that only Image and McFarland can print and make toys using the image, will people start crying and complaning about competitinn?

My mother and I were talking about how in the past, you could buy a plot of land, discover oil, then acquire equipment and skilled laborers to extract it. Entrants to the market do not have the same freedom as they once did with the regulatory and legal environment as it is.

I guess I see that as more of an issue than a voluntary contract between a professional sports league and a video game maker.

And none of it involving companies directly creating monopolistic or cartel-like entities. All about manipulating government to do that for them.

[codeorama]

Originally posted by KDawg

No one likes my idea of ESPN taking the Arena Football license?

I like it, I'd buy an arena football game. I'm not the biggest arena football fan, but I think a video game would be cool.

[DSF]

Originally posted by pr11fan

I don't understand the smilie, even fans of madden should be disappointed, what reason does EA have to put the best product possible on the field now that there is absolutely no competition in the nfl market. If their product stinks, oh well too bad, take it or leave it.

Please.. Its called profit.. If the consumer really doesnt like the game, then dont buy it. If enough consumers dont purchase the game, dont think for one minute EA won't alter their approach. They just spent what I can only imagine as a horde of money, why would they slack now? They need to make up the costs they just spent on this agreement through revenue.

There will always be competition for EA. Rather it be primary or secondary competitors. That coupled with the fact that EA is also invested in the NBA and NHL segment which they dont control and could lose revenue in if people perceive EA becoming a poor product. The consumer has the bottom line as to if they want to purchase this or not, and if not I guarantee there will be alternatives that EA cant control. So relax, it'll be fine.

[iheartskins]

Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin

That's a LOT to respond to, my guess is just looking at those case names, you're talking about industries and markets that are FAR broader than NFL video games. This isn't coal or energy in one locality(or cable) this is a very specific license to use names, likenesses, etc for ONE sport.

I don't mind extraneous discussion, I just don't agree. The slice of pie is just too small.

Sure, the emotional reactions are quite similar to those invoked by bars to competition from

Thing is, these same people are more concerned about a video game than about thousands of pages of laws and regulations(mostly the reg part) that bar small business entries to the marketplace and favor larger firms.

Anyone else here want to talk about the cartels formed by medical and bar associations in each state?

Most competitive barriers in the marketplace are introduced by government.

If I have a comic book and I sign a deal that only Image and McFarland can print and make toys using the image, will people start crying and complaning about competitinn?

My mother and I were talking about how in the past, you could buy a plot of land, discover oil, then acquire equipment and skilled laborers to extract it. Entrants to the market do not have the same freedom as they once did with the regulatory and legal environment as it is.

I guess I see that as more of an issue than a voluntary contract between a professional sports league and a video game maker.

And none of it involving companies directly creating monopolistic or cartel-like entities. All about manipulating government to do that for them.

If you start talking about how Image and McFarland have signed an exclusive deal to only work for each other, then I would say that the quality of McFarland's work has been going downhill since Amazing Spider-man 328.

It's totally fair to disagree (obviously) and it's interesting that you raise the oil example. The way that oil is treated as a commodity varies from state to state--in some places it's governed by a "capture rule" such that the oil only become your property when you have taken it out of the ground, thus allowing people to drill diagonally from outside your surface proper lines and get at your reserves. Needless to say, I don't think that's the rule in Texas.

You are right in saying that the regulatory environment has created substantial barrier to entry and diminished competition, but I think you'd also agree that without at least some of that regulation, we'd have no environment left because of all the externalities related to economic development.

While I can't say whether its true, if all government regulation introduced most of the barriers to entry in the marketplace, then we all would have the power to stop that regulation from going forward. Assuming we file our displeasure during the notice and comment period and read the Federal Register everyday. Not going to happen.

You also raised a good point that two parties should have the right to contract with whomever they want...and the courts have approved of this type of relationship--as long as its not anticompetitive (in US v. Colgate).

Anyway, this has been interesting thus far.

And what DSF said will probably be true. If people don't like the newest Madden game, then people won't buy it and EA will be forced to change to accommodate the marketplace, assuming the NFL games represent a significant portion of their income, so as to avoid a problem with their bottom line.

[ghetto-smoove]

Originally posted by KDawg

Looks like ESPN is done for ....

Hey, thats the best news I heard all day !!!! Yes !!!!! No more ESPN football !!!!

[ghetto-smoove]

Originally posted by jbooma

I agree, if they combine both games you have the best football game ever, however I think Sega and Microsoft will have the final laugh when they create a totally online game which will be able to have the NFL license

At least I am creating one now :cool:

Dont get your hopes up Booma..espn football is dead !!!

MADDEN FOREVER BABY !!!!!

[Mufumonk]

Originally posted by beast_of_burdens

sega can still make good quality games without the nfl lisence. take the winning eleven a.k.a pro evolution soccer series from konami. they don't have any of the actual names of teams or players (because they belong to FIFA and EA) but they still make superior games to EA. It's all about the gameplay, and aslong as Sega put in the effort to make a quality product than people will buy it. I like the winning eleven series too cause it pokes fun at not having the official lisences so it can be creative and funny when choosing names of teams and players. usually for players its a letter off or an exageration of their name. and for naming club teams they just call them by their nickname. so instead of the redskins they'd be called the skins or something. its not totally bad news, hopefully sega can survive from this cause i enjoy their games, and competition breeds quality.

There's one flaw in your thinking. EA has superior gameplay. Sega's is dreadful, unless you enjoy watching your players skate around the field like they were on ice. Reaction speed is awful. I'm a fast twitch gamer, so I expect my guys to move when I make them move. Sega hasn't been able to do that.

[codeorama]

Originally posted by Mufumonk

There's one flaw in your thinking. EA has superior gameplay. Sega's is dreadful, unless you enjoy watching your players skate around the field like they were on ice. Reaction speed is awful. I'm a fast twitch gamer, so I expect my guys to move when I make them move. Sega hasn't been able to do that.

I'm not a Sega defender, I generally prefer EA games, however, let me ask a question, in real life, are players able to turn instantly on a dime?

No, they are not. That's the problem with Madden IMO, the players react TOO fast, it's not realistic. EA fixed that in it's baseball game, the players had to realistically slow down and change momentum before they could make move, in short, the players reacted as a real living person would, not as a pixel on a tv screen moving like a UFO. Defenders should not be able to change direction like they do on Madden, it's not realistic and takes away from realistic game play.

[Mufumonk]

Originally posted by codeorama

I'm not a Sega defender, I generally prefer EA games, however, let me ask a question, in real life, are players able to turn instantly on a dime?

No, they are not. That's the problem with Madden IMO, the players react TOO fast, it's not realistic. EA fixed that in it's baseball game, the players had to realistically slow down and change momentum before they could make move, in short, the players reacted as a real living person would, not as a pixel on a tv screen moving like a UFO. Defenders should not be able to change direction like they do on Madden, it's not realistic and takes away from realistic game play.

Madden curbed this by reducing your cuts based on your agility. Your players aren't nearly as effective on cuts as they were in previous releases. What I mean by my players moving when I make them move, is that I want to see some sort of reaction from my guy when I have control of him, even if it's just a hitch. In Segas releases, there's a delay in any movement you make reducing the amount of actual skill it involves in playing the game.

[codeorama]

Originally posted by Mufumonk

Madden curbed this by reducing your cuts based on your agility. Your players aren't nearly as effective on cuts as they were in previous releases. What I mean by my players moving when I make them move, is that I want to see some sort of reaction from my guy when I have control of him, even if it's just a hitch. In Segas releases, there's a delay in any movement you make reducing the amount of actual skill it involves in playing the game.

Ok, I see what you mean.

Sega's wasn't good, but I just think that the players are a little "too" agile in Madden.

The baseball game was perfect IMO, I hope Madden looks at it to use as a comparison.