EA Sports Will Not Publish College Football Game Next Year, Future Plans in Doubt

[coogrfan]

Quote: Originally Posted by RedSoxFox7

That's still the case today, but that doesn't change the fact they should be consulted first, and they should have to give consent second. If you went to the 11,000 some odd FBS football players and asked them if they wanted to be in NCAA Football 15, officially, you'd probably get 90-95% of them just doing it to get their real name and face in the game. The top 5-10% that stand a chance of being drafted some day are the ones who will want compensation for their consent - and they deserve it. This isn't about saying the players should be paid to play by the schools. This is about the NCAA, CLC, and EA infringing the intellectual property rights of the players, and regardless of how you feel about players deserving pay, that is exploitation.

As opposed to the EA/CLC settlement, in which the individual players will reportedly walk away with less than $400 per person, while their lawyers will pocket $10 million plus. Now tell me again, who exactly is "exploiting" the players?

[da ThRONe]

Quote: Originally Posted by coogrfan

As opposed to the EA/CLC settlement, in which the individual players will reportedly walk away with less than $400 per person, while their lawyers will pocket $10 million plus. Now tell me again, who exactly is "exploiting" the players?

This is a win for all scholarship athletes. They can no longer have their likeness used without their permission. I'm no fan of lawyers and they made out like bandits in all of this financially you'll get no argument from me there. However this case may be the base that gets SA a step closer to earning the right to be compensated for their likeness like the NCAA and EA has been doing for years.

[coogrfan]

Quote: Originally Posted by da ThRONe

This is a win for all scholarship athletes. They can no longer have their likeness used without their permission. I'm no fan of lawyers and they made out like bandits in all of this financially you'll get no argument from me there. However this case may be the base that gets SA a step closer to earning the right to be compensated for their likeness like the NCAA and EA has been doing for years.

Imo, it's far more likely that the only result of all this will be that we've seen the last of college sports video games.

Thanks, guys. Don't spend it all in one place.

[da ThRONe]

Quote: Originally Posted by coogrfan

Imo, it's far more likely that the only result of all this will be that we've seen the last of college sports video games. Thanks, guys. Don't spend it all in one place.

If that's the case and we never get another collegiate game we have to ask why. The answer is EA was using SA's likeness without their permission point blank period.

EA could have made a game where the teams had completely random players. Since the actual players aren't that important.

[RedSoxFox7]

Quote: Originally Posted by coogrfan

5-10%? More like 1-2%. Are you familiar with the legal adage "hard cases make bad law"? If ever there was a classic example of the truth of that maxim, this is it. The notion of altering the entire landscape of college athletics for the sake of putting a few bucks in the pockets of such a miniscule fraction of the participants in cfb is, imho, utter folly.

No, it's more like 5-10%. It's a little over 2% in any given year.

As far as "altering the entire landscape of college athletics" is concerned, please, spare us the senseless exaggerations. Allowing student athletes to make money on their own likeness would hardly change anything, and the biggest change we have now is a stop to EA/CLC/NCAA profiting from their unauthorized use of intellectual property.

Quote: Originally Posted by coogrfan

As opposed to the EA/CLC settlement, in which the individual players will reportedly walk away with less than $400 per person, while their lawyers will pocket $10 million plus. Now tell me again, who exactly is "exploiting" the players?

The NCAA is (was) exploiting them. The NCAA was illegally using their IP (and that of many others not involved in the suit) for years. The terms of the EA/CLC settlement are irrelevant here.

[Forestman]

Quote: Originally Posted by da ThRONe

If that's the case and we never get another collegiate game we have to ask why. The answer is EA was using SA's likeness without their permission point blank period. EA could have made a game where the teams had completely random players. Since the actual players aren't that important.

Apparently that wouldn't have sold very well. They were pushing for authenticity which was in higher demand than ever before.

[rspencer86]

I know I can be a bit of a dreamer, but if EA or another company is bold enough to ever try making a game without a license, there would be some nice benefits:

• Cost: Licensing all of the teams and bowls is a significant portion of the budget for this game (does anyone know the rough percentage? 10% 25%?). An unlicensed game would be much cheaper to produce, meaning more profit.
  
• Less Restrictions: Academic fraud, recruiting violations, player misconduct, late hits, more celebrations could all be represented in the game without being fettered by the NCAA's tight restrictions.
  
• Complete Customization: With no official team logos, uniforms or bowl games shipping with the game, complete customization is a must. But with no NCAA restrictions, customization could go even further, being able to tweak the playoff system or even the rules of the game itself.

It would be very tough to convince the consumer that an unlicensed game is worth buying. The game would have to feature incredibly strong gameplay, deep game modes, fantastic online functionality, and of course complete customization. And it would have to be smartly marketed, going after the true fanatics of college football. But I still think it is possible, and hopefully one day we will see it happen.

[Forestman]

Quote: Originally Posted by rspencer86

I know I can be a bit of a dreamer, but if EA or another company is bold enough to ever try making a game without a license, there would be some nice benefits: Cost: Licensing all of the teams and bowls is a significant portion of the budget for this game (does anyone know the rough percentage? 10% 25%?). An unlicensed game would be much cheaper to produce, meaning more profit. Less Restrictions: Academic fraud, recruiting violations, player misconduct, late hits, more celebrations could all be represented in the game without being fettered by the NCAA's tight restrictions. Complete Customization: With no official team logos, uniforms or bowl games shipping with the game, complete customization is a must. But with no NCAA restrictions, customization could go even further, being able to tweak the playoff system or even the rules of the game itself. It would be very tough to convince the consumer that an unlicensed game is worth buying. The game would have to feature incredibly strong gameplay, deep game modes, fantastic online functionality, and of course complete customization. And it would have to be smartly marketed, going after the true fanatics of college football. But I still think it is possible, and hopefully one day we will see it happen.

That is the exact problem. The general consumer wouldn't be "die hard" enough to go find the files, create files, or import files. They just wanna get on and play. Most people would have very little patience and that is why we most likely won't see something like this.