The Madden NFL Lawsuit: Suing EA For Fun and Profit

Anton P. Nym

New member
Sep 18, 2007
2,611
0
0
Cheeze_Pavilion said:
Isn't "the likenesses of real-life players and teams of the leagues in quesiton" a commodity of value? And isn't exclusive access to a commodity of value for which no substitute commodities exist properly termed a monopoly?
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.

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
 

Geoffrey42

New member
Aug 22, 2006
862
0
0
Cheeze_Pavilion said:
I would also add the question: is quality *lower*? In other words, monopolies don't just work by jacking up a good that that should cost $50 to $60; they also work by keeping a good that is worth $60 out of the marketplace entirely because it would have to be made by a competitor.

In other words, like the complaint states, it's also about the "benefit of a free, competitive marketplace for interactive football software" that is lost when EA gets exclusive rights like this. Which I think is along the lines of what you were saying with "just because other AAA games cost 50-60 dollars at retail, does not immediately negate any possibility of monopolistic effects" or at least, that's what your words reminded me of.
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.

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.
 

FISHFINGERS

New member
May 26, 2008
71
0
0
Cheeze_Pavilion said:
So why did EA pay all that money if they could have just made a 'football game' without using real names?
Simple. EA knows that a 'Football Game' using real names will give them a larger profit margin.
Sure the game costs a little more to make. But the game will ship more units.
 

zoozilla

New member
Dec 3, 2007
959
0
0
Ultimately, isn't it the consumer's fault for buying the damn games?

Boycotts have worked before. Are people really going to go apeshit because they can't play an updated version of Madden?
 

Anton P. Nym

New member
Sep 18, 2007
2,611
0
0
Anton P. Nym 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.)
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.

-- Steve
 

Veylon

New member
Aug 15, 2008
1,626
0
0
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.
 

DjinnFor

New member
Nov 20, 2009
281
0
0
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.