EA Lays Down the Law

[sterlingice]

Say what you will, but you know at least half of you suckers who have bought Madden for $50 every year when it came out will be doing it again next year and it's not like they're going to be losing their base since a majority of their purchasers won't even know it. C'mon, this time next year, there will be a few extra people in the store going "Hm.. where did Sega's games go?" But in the end, few will actually know or care and will just buy Madden.

It's a horrible thing for the industry but they're getting away with it because, well, they can.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

What EA is doing may be the best possible thing for the industry.

Now, SEGA has incentive to challenge what's likely never to hold up on court - the claimed restriction on using real player names.

At least there's hope here. But I'm not overly optimistic.

Then again, I haven't bought a football game in a couple of years. I would have bought NFL2K5 if it would have come out for Nintendo at that attractive price point ($20 for a new football game/roster updates that's pretty good; that's significantly better than $50 per year for roster updates).

The sad thing is that SEGA's willingness to price it that low this year probably pushed the discussion from "Well, maybe we'll do it" like 6 months ago to "We have to do it, otherwise SEGA is a threat". Because, better to buy up the exclusive rights so another company can't develop than to lower the fucking price, EA.

SI

[Draft Dodger]

I seem to recall this coming up several months ago when EA's "exclusive" contract was signed with the NFL (for a HUGE number, IIRC). At that point, after a brief scare, it all came out that this was NOT going to be any sort of exclusive deal, and that it was some other sort of deal.

Guess that was all wrong.

[Calis]

IGN is reporting "rumors" about EA contacting the NBA and MLB as well, although when they asked EA they just declined to comment.

So who knows on that one? I'm sure they'd be at least looking into it.

[SackAttack]

Yeah, why not? If you can freeze the competition by buying exclusive licenses - and EA has the resources to do that - why not? Beats having to actually, y'know, compete for business.

[Anthony]

if it worked for MS...

[SackAttack]

http://students.uat.edu/ryamccab/images/madden2006.jpg

Gold.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

http://students.uat.edu/ryamccab/images/madden2006.jpg

Gold.

Beeeautiful.

SI

[LionsFan10]

Disgusting, this is just the sort of shit that I can't stand. Terrible news, indeed. I will not be buying any EA Sports games next year, that's for sure.

[bob]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

My son will be disappointed to learn there won't be another edition of Backyard Football any time soon.

It sucks for the consumer, but it's a smart business move on EA's part (assuming they didn't overpay).

From the IGN article:

"The reason that you're noticing a certain vagueness to the language in the press release is because the license deals do not include smaller games such as Atari's Backyard Football; it's not subject to this agreement due to their numbers. And any wireless game or cell phone game is not part of the deal either."

So at least Backyard Football is safe.

[Ben E Lou]

Good ol' EA.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by bob

From the IGN article:

"The reason that you're noticing a certain vagueness to the language in the press release is because the license deals do not include smaller games such as Atari's Backyard Football; it's not subject to this agreement due to their numbers. And any wireless game or cell phone game is not part of the deal either."

So at least Backyard Football is safe.

Good catch Bob, I missed that when reading the article. Thanks for the heads-up.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Lets hope the NCAA doesn't decide to do the same thing.

Well, as Jim showed us with TCY, this is not as big a deal. With so many Universities named after their location, and the NCAA not licensing player names anyway, you can generate a universe which approximates the NCAA lanscape only changing about 7-10 University names to their locations (Durham, Nashville, etc.) and having players with the numbers and attributes of current players and fake (or no) names.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by Samdari

Well, as Jim showed us with TCY, this is not as big a deal. With so many Universities named after their location, and the NCAA not licensing player names anyway, you can generate a universe which approximates the NCAA lanscape only changing about 7-10 University names to their locations (Durham, Nashville, etc.) and having players with the numbers and attributes of current players and fake (or no) names.

It would be more of an issue with a console game, with team nicknames, logos, and uniforms.

[Arles]

This certainly appears to be a blow to the consumer. But I think I'm with Jim on this one. The end result of what Sega does here to keep a foothold in the market should help pave the way for independents to stay competitive. Now, SEGA is in the same boat as Jim, Clay, Brian or us at Grey Dog from a licensing standpoint and they have to funds to really push this issue (something none of us ever had). I would not be surprised if the end result of all this is a more specific definition in what can be licensed (ie, redefining what a "likeness" is) - which may exclude the names of players.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Arles

This certainly appears to be a blow to the consumer. But I think I'm with Jim on this one. The end result of what Sega does here to keep a foothold in the market should help pave the way for independents to stay competitive. Now, SEGA is in the same boat as Jim, Clay, Brian or us at Grey Dog from a licensing standpoint and they have to funds to really push this issue (something none of us ever had). I would not be surprised if the end result of all this is a more specific definition in what can be licensed (ie, redefining what a "likeness" is) - which may exclude the names of players.

Arlie/Jim, since you've both probably explored the option before- is there any potential legitimacy to a case akin to what you're proposing ? Can you claim the usage of names based on the "public use" idea ?

[Solecismic]

Yes. Based on the federal Lanham Act. It's really a slam dunk, and there have been similar cases that have gone against the sports figure. But as any business owner would tell you, what's important legally is not being right under the law. It's staying out of court, period.

Big businesses like EA and the NFLPA can afford lawyers and protracted court battles. That's why it's so interesting that another big company, SEGA, now has financial incentive to challenge this particular scheme. If SEGA were to challenge and win, I doubt EA and the NFLPA would bother us.

Now the logos and NFL team names are another story entirely. I think that restriction would hold up in court.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Arlie/Jim, since you've both probably explored the option before- is there any potential legitimacy to a case akin to what you're proposing ? Can you claim the usage of names based on the "public use" idea ?

I remember there was a lawsuit about this involving Hardball 5, where some former players sued over being included as historical players, Accolade's defense was that they simply used players names and stats, something that is available in many historical records. I don't remember how this case turned out though.

[Solecismic]

The companies involved realized that there was a danger in challenging licensing schemes in that if they won, it would remove the barrier to entry that the schemes impose on the little guys.

So they paid the veterans off. It never went to court.

[Raiders Army]

A little late to post, but the NFL makes an exclusive deal with DirecTV and now EA Sports? This sucks.

[cwilloughby]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

http://students.uat.edu/ryamccab/images/madden2006.jpg

Gold.

HAHA. Here is another from the ESPN NFL forums.

[mightyshoe]

Is there a console version of Bloodbowl?

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by mightyshoe

Is there a console version of Bloodbowl?

Yes, it's called Mutant League Football

I sincerely hope that the scuttlebutt (that Visual Concepts, creator of the ESPN NFL series, is planning to do a Monster Football or Cyberball game) is true... because EA Sports can bite my Jade Turtle.. I ain't buyin their crap any more.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by cwilloughby

HAHA. Here is another from the ESPN NFL forums.

I think I like this one better.

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by cwilloughby

HAHA. Here is another from the ESPN NFL forums.

Classic.


Todd

[sterlingice]

According to the NY Times, the amount paid was $300M for the 5 year contract.

SI

[SackAttack]

It's just too bad Sega couldn't trump that.

[sterlingice]

So, let's do the math. $60M per year = 1.2 million copies * $50 a game. So, they were expecting Sega to at least cut that much into their bottom line. Man, they badly viewed Sega as a big threat over the next 5 years.

Even odder, considering Madden does ~3.5M in sales per year, that's cutting a lot into the bottom line. Which tells me they don't have much in the way of development costs each year (go figure).

SI

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by cwilloughby

HAHA. Here is another from the ESPN NFL forums.

Somebody replaced SkyDog's head with Adolph Hitler!

[Zippo]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

So, let's do the math. $60M per year = 1.2 million copies * $50 a game. So, they were expecting Sega to at least cut that much into their bottom line. Man, they badly viewed Sega as a big threat over the next 5 years.

Even odder, considering Madden does ~3.5M in sales per year, that's cutting a lot into the bottom line. Which tells me they don't have much in the way of development costs each year (go figure).

SI

I think you have to take away how much their old license would have cost as well.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

So, let's do the math. $60M per year = 1.2 million copies * $50 a game. So, they were expecting Sega to at least cut that much into their bottom line. Man, they badly viewed Sega as a big threat over the next 5 years.

Possibly more, depending on how long Sega stayed at $20. If the game stayed at $20 for the next two years (end of the current console's life cycle) and then $50 thereafter, in order for the deal with the NFL to make financial sense, Sega would have had to sell 9.6 million copies the next five years (two years of 3 million each @ $20/game, the 1.2 million you cited for the following three years).

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Zippo

I think you have to take away how much their old license would have cost as well.

True, true. Forgot about that.

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Possibly more, depending on how long Sega stayed at $20. If the game stayed at $20 for the next two years (end of the current console's life cycle) and then $50 thereafter, in order for the deal with the NFL to make financial sense, Sega would have had to sell 9.6 million copies the next five years (two years of 3 million each @ $20/game, the 1.2 million you cited for the following three years).

Well, actually it's different than that. Because, we're not talking about the money Sega would make (unless you're talking about them and an exclusive contract). We're talking about the money EA would lose. Which means they have to lose those 1.2M customers per year. This year, a lot of people didn't switch from Madden to NFL2K5 because of Sega's low price point. They bought both. Madden didn't see a big hit in sales, they just saw a big bump from the other side of the aisle.

SI

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Well, actually it's different than that. Because, we're not talking about the money Sega would make (unless you're talking about them and an exclusive contract). We're talking about the money EA would lose. Which means they have to lose those 1.2M customers per year. This year, a lot of people didn't switch from Madden to NFL2K5 because of Sega's low price point. They bought both. Madden didn't see a big hit in sales, they just saw a big bump from the other side of the aisle.

SI

Well, I have the feeling that if Sega had the exclusive contract, they wouldn't stay at $20/game for the two years I insinuated they might (if you've got a 5 year window, why waste 40% of that?).

But I was saying that from the pool of sales Madden might be expected to have, for that contract to make sense, the figures I quoted above would have to be sales away from the Madden franchise, as opposed to this year's dual-sales occurrences.

[MacroGuru]

I haven't bought a Madden game for 3 years....It looks like I will stay that way.

[SunDevil]

Guys,

Sega was planning on raising the price of their sports games next year anyways.

http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/sports/...s_6114690.html

So its not like you would have been saving any money next year, just would have had a choice.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

On the consoles, a fair chunk of that $50 goes to the console maker and for manufacturing costs (the amount varies per console). So it's more than 1.2 million for them to just break even on the licensing deal.

Well, yeah, but that's not how I was dividing it up. I was thinking X copies pays for licensing, X copies pays for manufacturing, X copies pays for advertising, etc.

SI

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

So, let's do the math. $60M per year = 1.2 million copies * $50 a game.

On the consoles, a fair chunk of that $50 goes to the console maker and for manufacturing costs (the amount varies per console). So it's more than 1.2 million for them to just break even on the licensing deal.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by SunDevil

Guys,

Sega was planning on raising the price of their sports games next year anyways.

http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/sports/...s_6114690.html

So its not like you would have been saving any money next year, just would have had a choice.

Nothing I've seen has indicated that it would be next year for sure. Only that premium pricing would've returned with the next generation of consoles.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Well, yeah, but that's not how I was dividing it up. I was thinking X copies pays for licensing, X copies pays for manufacturing, X copies pays for advertising, etc.

SI

That works for fixed cost items (like licensing and advertising), but not for manufacturing which is a cost per item. So you have to cut out the cost to actually manufacture the item (and the retailer's cut, again a cost per item) to determine how much money EA gets, then you can figure out how many copies pays for licensing, how many for advertising, etc.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Yes. Based on the federal Lanham Act. It's really a slam dunk, and there have been similar cases that have gone against the sports figure. But as any business owner would tell you, what's important legally is not being right under the law. It's staying out of court, period.

Big businesses like EA and the NFLPA can afford lawyers and protracted court battles. That's why it's so interesting that another big company, SEGA, now has financial incentive to challenge this particular scheme. If SEGA were to challenge and win, I doubt EA and the NFLPA would bother us.

Now the logos and NFL team names are another story entirely. I think that restriction would hold up in court.

What about problems the other way, ie. will EA now use this exclusiveness to challenge even the small game makers that even use the suggestion of a NFL set-up? Couldn't they (along with the NFL) put everyone in court to supress the smaller companies?

[robbgmaier]

Maybe this will bring about a revival of Tournament Cyberball. God I miss that game. If any of you have the 4 player arcade version in your basement, I'll bring as much beer as my card can hold and will order pizzas until they stop accepting my credit cards.

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

What about problems the other way, ie. will EA now use this exclusiveness to challenge even the small game makers that even use the suggestion of a NFL set-up? Couldn't they (along with the NFL) put everyone in court to supress the smaller companies?

I was wondering that too.. especially with the language about football management games.. perhaps EA wants to get into that arena again. Would they try to suppress the little guy?

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

I was wondering that too.. especially with the language about football management games.. perhaps EA wants to get into that arena again. Would they try to suppress the little guy?

Look for this in the next 2-3 years.

[Its Vanilla]

2005 was the first year I didn't buy Madden. I didn't by Sega either, but I did like the gameplay when I rented it.

I hope that Sega uses their game engine for a college football game. I hope they make the greatest college football game ever, totally blowing out NCAA 2006. In fact, if Sega were to make a college game, I'd buy it instead of EA's, simply because of this.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

I just hope that Sega changes the horrile player model. I hate the stretched out players.

[Ragone]

I got to thinking about this at work tonight (before they let me go home early)

This wasn't a good move for ea.. and let me tell you how espn responds..

they make their next game with editable team names.. and easy to edit rosters that take advantage of usb keyboards.. With roster hounds out today making rosters in under a week.. and the ease of use of a usb memory card.. If espn's product is superior.. it'll sell.. This also allows espn to spend more money developing new features

Now on to ea, they obviously had to overpay for exclusive rights.. considering i believe 3 other companies had rights (ea,midway,espn.. maybe microsoft still?) now to entice the league to do this kinda deal.. they had to at least come close to what all of them were paying combined, which really cannot be that good of a deal for ea at all.

[MizzouRah]

This is the scariest quote of all:

On a scarier note for these same publishers, rumors are already circulating that EA is attempting to negotiate similar deals with the NBA and Major League Baseball. When IGN contacted Trudy Muller, spokesperson for Electronic Arts about these rumors, she told us: "We cannot speculate at this time about any further plans these other leagues may have."

Todd

[Calis]

It looks as if EA has now bought the rights to the AFL as well.

These cats ain't messing around.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Originally Posted by Calis

It looks as if EA has now bought the rights to the AFL as well.

These cats ain't messing around.

Now the question is : Will EA combine both games into one or sell them seperately?

[TazFTW]

Reading the press release would make it sound like EA will be releasing a seperate AFL game starting in 2006.