Topic: EA Buys Five Years of Exclusive NFL Rights

[NWR_Lindy]

Let's have a look at the Federal Trade Commission's website to see what antitrust law says about something like this:

- Section 2 of the Sherman Act makes it unlawful for a company to "monopolize, or attempt to monopolize," trade or commerce. As that law has been interpreted, it is not necessarily illegal for a company to have a monopoly or to try to achieve a monopoly position. The law is violated only if the company tries to maintain or acquire a monopoly position through unreasonable methods. For the courts, a key factor in determining what is unreasonable is whether the practice has a legitimate business justification.

So I guess the question would be, does Electronic Arts have a legitimate business justification for securing this license?  You could argue both ways, but it doesn't take a graduate of Harvard Law to understand that EA has effectively prevented anybody from making another pro football game for the next 5 years.  Oh, but "competitors" could still get an Arena Football League license, right?  Who cares?  And a game in which you create your own rosters will sell ONLY to the ultra-hardcore; anybody that's employed isn't going to have the time to input all of that information, and if they can get a comparable game with all of that information already included they'll most certainly buy that.

The worst thing about all this is that EA is guaranteed to jack future editions of Madden back up to $49.95 instead of the $29.95 it was at before this deal went through.  Who's going to stop them?  They're the only game in town, pardon the pun.  Somebody (aside from EA's propaganda machine) tell me how this is good for consumers.

silks

[edgeblade69]

So basically, all Sega really needs to do is just match EA's offer. Do this like the NFL teams do. The NFL is a restricted free agent, so Sega should match the offer and be able to keep their rights too, well you would think anyways. Knowing EA they will just throw more and more money at the NFL until Sega can't afford to match it.
And for the record, Johnny's (I think it was his) comment about the Microsoft/IE/Netscape situation, that is different. See, people are stupid in general. Just because IE comes with your computer does not mean you have to use it. Sure, you might have to use it once if it's a brand new computer and you don't have the install file for a different browser on another computer or storage medium, but you can then just go download another browser (like Mozilla Firefox, cough cough) and use it exclusively from then on. Why use my post is a train wreck's crap? It's bad enough we're forced to use Windows if we want decent compatability.
Just remember: Monpolies breed crappy products (Windows). Competition breeds better products. Granted, Madden has always blown 2K away . I used to be a fan of 2K until I played Madden 04. Madden has replay challenges and was easier to pick defenses too. NFL 2K3 (the last one I played) didn't have this, which is stupid. But then Sega pulled the 2K line from GCN (even though at the time it wasn't selling on ANY console). So oh well.  

[Michael_82]

The NFL is allowed to market their product however they like.  If you're mad, be mad at the NFL not EA, it's their decision.  Visa has exclusive rights with the NFL too ya know.

[edgeblade69]

Not sure if you referring to me or not. I'm not really mad. I just don't want crappy products to flood the market more so than they already do.

[foolish03]

Quote
Originally posted by: anubis6789
I bet Sega is having a mixed reaction to this news, on one hand they can't use the NFL liscense anymore and thats bad, but they also (in a way) made a sucsessful challenge to EA. Look at it this way if Sega and the ESPN line hadn't made as big an impact then EA would not have done this. EA did this out of fear, fear that they might not be number one.

While most see this as the beginings of a monopoly I see this move, coupled with the news of EA's treatment of its employees and other bad news as a sign that EA might be crumbling, well I hope at least.

Maybe this will usher in an age of sports games not having to be liscensed to sale, which has been a dream of mine for a long time.

Im sorry but the only none licensed football game ill ever get is mutant league.  Other then that its gonna have to be madden for the next five years(sadly).  I could just play my outdated 2k5 though.....

Edit: college football hmmm, sounds good.  Is espn going to make another college football game?

[NWR_Lindy]

"its gonna have to be madden for the next five years"

That's exactly what everybody else is going to say as well.

I'm not mad at EA.  This deal is a masterstroke for them.  What I don't like is the fact that this has eliminated any semblance of competition for EA in the NFL football game market.  Madden isn't crap by any means, but it was nice having two games to choose from instead of one.

silks  

[ruby_onix]

Quote
Originally posted by: The NFL two years from now

Well, you have to understand our position. We changed our minds and sold NFL licences to Sega, Midway, Sony, and Microsoft because we're poor and we like money. You're a stupid nobody who doesn't understand economics. We're a business. Money is important to us. We're not just here to entertain people.

Also, we know that we said it would be exclusive for 5 years, but the term "exclusive" only ever applies to one console generation, and we've entered a new one now, so the deal is void.

Also, we weren't lying when we said it was going to be exclusive, because we believed 100% that it would end up being true back when we said it, therefore it wasn't a lie.

Oh and by the way, I'm just as upset about this as you are. The NFL has turned me into a liar. Which is why I'm quitting the NFL in protest and joining the NFLPA.


Edit: Oh and, I don't see what you're complaining about. EA still has an NFL licence. We haven't taken that away yet. There will still be NFL games from EA. So when you think about it, this development doesn't even really affect EA at all. I'm thinking that you don't even have a right to complain about it. If you're upset about this, well... that's your problem, not mine.

 

[God Speaks]

I guess EA decided it would be cheaper to pay for exclusive name rights for five years than to compete with a $20 product.

[Asterix]

Maybe we can finally get a real CFL game? There was only ever one licenced game, and it came out for the PC in like '96 or something.. Too bad it stunk up the joint..

But seriously, why not? Granted, we only have nine teams, but it's still pro football, we supply half of the future NFLers anyways, and the only major rule differences are three downs instead of four, you can score single points on punts and missed field goals, and the field size is different. (Oh, and you get a penalty for objectionable conduct if you take your helmet off on the field ) And it's not like it would be that hard to throw in an option that changes the three downs to four and removes all single point possibilites for you Americans that insist on your NFL rules.

I just think it would be nice to finally have a real CFL game. It's not like companies can't afford it - the CFL can use all the publicity it can get, and it would be more moolah in the teams' pockets at no expense to them.

[edits: hm.. i cant spell... >_>]

[UncleBob]

Quote
Originally posted by: Silks
So I guess the question would be, does Electronic Arts have a legitimate business justification for securing this license?

Yes.  That's like saying because Nintendo gave Capcom exclusive rights to make Zelda games, they're giving Capcom a monopoly and Sony should be allowed to make Zelda games as well.

[Jonnyboy117]

Quote
Originally posted by: Asterix
And it's not like it would be that hard to throw in an option that changes the three downs to four and removes all single point possibilites for you Americans that insist on your NFL rules.

Just thought I'd note that those aren't just NFL rules, but the rules by which all football is played in America...college, high school, middle school, etc.

[Ian Sane]

The CFL doesn't have that big of an audience but at the very least it would sell better than an unlicenced football game.  Perhaps they should instead combine multiple leagues so that they have CFL teams, arena football teams, some major college teams, and maybe even defunct XFL teams.  Hell throw in some rugby teams just to spice things up.  Then you give players the option to customize the rules.  It wouldn't exactly be the NFL but it would allow for a game with real (or formerly real) teams.  It's like the Legends of Wrestling concept applied to football.

[KDR_11k]

And besides, they didn't license the rules, just the characters.

[NWR_Lindy]

Quote
Originally posted by: UncleBob

Quote
Originally posted by: Silks
So I guess the question would be, does Electronic Arts have a legitimate business justification for securing this license?

Yes.  That's like saying because Nintendo gave Capcom exclusive rights to make Zelda games, they're giving Capcom a monopoly and Sony should be allowed to make Zelda games as well.

No.  The difference is that Sony never WAS making Zelda games, and has and never WILL be able to make Zelda games, so nothing is being revoked.  The customer isn't getting shortchanged because there wasn't competition in the first place.  In the case of the EA/NFL, any real possibility of fair competition is being removed.

I think "legitimate business justification" doesn't necessarily mean, "They did what was good for their company" either.  They obviously did the right and smart thing from their perspective, but that doesn't mean they aren't screwing the consumer over.

silks  

[vudu]

I seem to remember hearing back in the day of NBA Jam that Midway didn't have the rights to put Michael Jordan in its games, so instead a fictional character was used that looked the same and had the same stats.

Is there anything stopping Sega from using real player/team information only changing the names?  Hell, why not make the player/team names editable, so hardcore fans can change the names back to what they're supposed to be?  Sega could even create a patch that would update everything to the correct information and then deny that they created it.


BTW, does anyone know if all this was in direct response to Sega dropping the price of it's sports games to $19.99, or if this deal was put into motion long before the price change?

[SgtShiversBen]

That's what happened when Madden 64 first came out.  They didn't get the rights to use the teams so they just had the names with teams like "Dallas."  Stuff like this has been happening a long time, it's just now they bought out the rights.  Then it was because EA was just too lazy.  Oh well, this doesn't effect me.  NFL 2K3 still tides me over and I was never interested in Madden games.  

[couchmonkey]

I wonder if having a monopoly on football games really counts as a monopoly?  Besides the fact that Sega and other competitors can still make football games minus the NFL liscence, they can still make a zillion other kinds of videogames.  At any rate, I do hope some other game companies will take action against this if it's at all possible.  

[God Speaks]

Quote
Originally posted by: kingvudu
I seem to remember hearing back in the day of NBA Jam that Midway didn't have the rights to put Michael Jordan in its games, so instead a fictional character was used that looked the same and had the same stats.

Only because MJ handled his own stuff outside of the player's association umbrella.

[The Omen]

Poor Sega.  

Here's a thought, instead of bashing E.A. for what is a very logical move, how about bashing Sega?  Can you all see if Sega obtained the rights, they would now have the best selling football game for the next 5 years?  Yet another in a long line of business blunders.  This was Segas chance, and they missed it.  Who is running the show over there anyway, Sammy Corp?  Had Sega pulled this off, you guys would be parading in the streets.  Why?  Because their football games don't sell as well?  As far as I can tell , this changes one thing-having the real players.  Most of you don't care about that anyway, right?  Remember all the arguments stating "I don't understand why people buy a new Madden every year, I'll just play 2002.  It's the same game."  Well, now you have your chance with 2k4.

I say good riddance.

[matt oz]

This is in no way a monopoly, for those of you who say it is.  They have a monopoly on NFL games, that's it.  They didn't license NCAA, arena football, or even the NBA, NHL, or any other professional sports league.  Unless EA had bought the licensing rights to every video game ever created, they do not have a monopoly.  

Anyway, a few years ago, I would have thought this was an awful and unfair business move.  But ever since I started business school, I see things a lot differently, and I think this is an ingenious move.  If you have an advantage over your competitor(s), then use it.

Besides, the reviews for Madden games are always extremely favorable, despite the fact that each rendition is essentially an expansion pack.  Once the quality starts to seriously deteriorate, or once the price goes up by a large amount, then you can start complaining.

And I'm sure Sega, Sony, and Microsoft will continue to make football games, just not NFL games.

[Ian Sane]

"Anyway, a few years ago, I would have thought this was an awful and unfair business move. But ever since I started business school, I see things a lot differently, and I think this is an ingenious move."

Translation: A few years ago I would have thought this was an awful and unfair business move... but then I started my supervillian training.

I don't think any of us are debating whether or not this is a good business move.  Of course it is.  That's not the point.  Microsoft and Wal-Mart make good business moves all of the time but you don't see too many people proclaiming that as a good thing.  I don't care how much money a corporation makes.  Once I, the consumer, get f*cked by a business decision I have every right to complain.  And we are being f*cked here because we used to have a choice regarding NFL games and now we don't.  This development doesn't benefit consumers in ANY WAY so therefore it's a load of bullsh!t.

[Renny]

Quote
Originally conceived by: Silks
And a game in which you create your own rosters will sell ONLY to the ultra-hardcore; anybody that's employed isn't going to have the time to input all of that information...

A patch will be released for the community by someone. You only need to be hardcore enough to buy a USB memory card.

Quote
This was recently said by: matt oz
Anyway, a few years ago, I would have thought this was an awful and unfair business move. But ever since I started business school, I see things a lot differently, and I think this is an ingenious move. If you have an advantage over your competitor(s), then use it.

Bold mine. Of course that logic makes business sense. That doesn't mean it isn't unfair. Microsoft had every reason to want to prevent BeOS from being preloaded on OEM PCs, but that doesn't mean they should have gotten away with it. This was mentioned in the thread, but apparently it needs reiterating.

[Hostile Creation]

Yeah, I don't play football games.
But EA still sucks.

[Djunknown]

Quote
This was Segas chance, and they missed it. Who is running the show over there anyway, Sammy Corp? Had Sega pulled this off, you guys would be parading in the streets

Omen beat me to the punch. I was going to say the same thing. Basically, Sega is Sammy's bitch, who in turn, doesn't give  a rat's ass about the North American market; despite being ridiculously lucrative compared to Japan. But that's another story....

Since I'm not a fan of football games, I can't say I'm very emotional about it. But I'm going to predict that the next console cycle will have less than innovative Madden titles, until their deal is up in 2009.

As far as a American Football Legends title goes; I can't see why the hell not. To set an example, Winning Eleven>>FiFA 2k whatever. Its got potential....

While I'm playing Nostradamus here, I don't expect EA to start scooping up sports licenses left and right. Even though the amount is undisclosed, it sure isn't chump change.  *Takes off wierd,pointy hat.*

[UncleBob]

Quote
Originally posted by: Silks
No.  The difference is that Sony never WAS making Zelda games, and has and never WILL be able to make Zelda games, so nothing is being revoked.  The customer isn't getting shortchanged because there wasn't competition in the first place.  In the case of the EA/NFL, any real possibility of fair competition is being removed.

Well, we could use the same example but throw in Disney lisences and any of the various companies who made Disney games over the years... or *may* other lisenced titles.