ps3 fans should sue for payin 60 dollers for a game the runs at half the frames of the 360 version
The Madden NFL Lawsuit: Suing EA For Fun and Profit
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Likeness are not commodities; commodities are exchangeable and replaceable. Frozen concentrated orange juice and pork bellies (thank you, Trading Places) are commodities. An identity is unique. (Until you click on links in those urgent, anonymously-sent emails from your "bank", anyway.) I know it's hard to view EA games (and most professional athletes, for that matter) as not being basically identical and replaceable goods... but they are indeed not, and are special, precious snowflakes all of their own. As witnessed by your desire to pretend to be (for example) Bill Belichick coaching the New England Patriots, instead of Cheeze_Pavilion coaching the Escapist Quotewranglers.Cheeze_Pavilion said:
You can make a football game without using real names; that's why I don't view this as a proper monopoly. The rules themselves aren't (unless I'm mistaken) covered by EA's agreement. (Good thing, too, as I'm looking forward to Blood Bowl this fall.) But if that's not good enough for you, well, take it up with the NFL for selling those exclusive rights to the wrong guys, not EA for buying them.
-- Steve
what i said earlier was not meant as an xbox slight it was bashing ea for crappy products at full price
Your question is another good question to ask, but it wasn't what I was going for. Agreed entirely, but lemme see if I can make my point more effectively.Cheeze_Pavilion said:
We have a marketplace for videogames on a particular console. Within that market, we can segregate it into multiple genres (ie, separate but related markets, depending on the consumer in question): licensed sports titles, racing games, genre-defying standouts that sell horribly, G{F,T}PS, etc. The statements above saying that "AAA title = 50-60 bucks, therefore Madden'0X for 60 is obviously a fair price" are taking the logical step from "Games from major publishers in genre X, which has fair market competition, cost 60 dollars", + "Games from major publishers in genre Y, which arguably lacks fair market competition due to exclusive licensing, cost 60 dollars", therefore "The lack of fair market competition due to exclusive licensing has no monopolistic effects on the cost of the games". I think this is fallacious. I would also be open to alternative formulations of the parts before and after the "therefore", but that's how I was reading earlier statements, in a more blown-up, explicit form.
Simple. EA knows that a 'Football Game' using real names will give them a larger profit margin.Cheeze_Pavilion said:
Sure the game costs a little more to make. But the game will ship more units.
Yep.zoozilla said:
Also, 50 canadian dollars for that game? We have to pay 60 EURO's in here, bah.
Speaking of which; Blood Bowl teaser trailer [http://kotaku.com/5020123/blood-bowl-makes-medieval-football-appealing]. Looks to definitely follow the spirit of the good ol' board game, and unless I hear something catastrophic about it it'll be a must-buy for me.Anton P. Nym said:
-- Steve
This is absolute nonsense.
Let's say, for example, that EA get exclusive rights to make a game based on, say, "The Lord of the Rings". And charges 100 dollars. Does that make them monopolistic? Because other companies can't now make the same game also based "The Lord of the Rings", and have to make do with generic fantasy? Are their products are somehow of lower quality because they lack Frodo and Sauron? Would such names not also be "commodities of value" in producing a game?
I completely fail to see how this is a monopoly when the NFL itself has faced, and continues to face competition of it's own. A monopoly requires total and enforceable control of market share, and that's not something obtainable in the world of video games at the moment.
Let's say, for example, that EA get exclusive rights to make a game based on, say, "The Lord of the Rings". And charges 100 dollars. Does that make them monopolistic? Because other companies can't now make the same game also based "The Lord of the Rings", and have to make do with generic fantasy? Are their products are somehow of lower quality because they lack Frodo and Sauron? Would such names not also be "commodities of value" in producing a game?
I completely fail to see how this is a monopoly when the NFL itself has faced, and continues to face competition of it's own. A monopoly requires total and enforceable control of market share, and that's not something obtainable in the world of video games at the moment.
Unfortunately, the various Football leagues are well within their legal rights to not want the likeness of any of their players and teams in just any game. It's their intellectual property to do with as they wish. The only chance they've got is to try and bullshit theur way through the courts on the charge that EA is "too big" and hope the judges buy it.
Whether it's rational for intellectual property to exist at all given the fact that it basically just results in the creation of monopolies and little else is the debatable point here, and if they wanted to make waves they'd be arguing against the validity of intellectual property. Unfortunately "legal precedence" may just trump common sense here so whatever.
Whether it's rational for intellectual property to exist at all given the fact that it basically just results in the creation of monopolies and little else is the debatable point here, and if they wanted to make waves they'd be arguing against the validity of intellectual property. Unfortunately "legal precedence" may just trump common sense here so whatever.