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

[jhogan3132]

Quote: Originally Posted by NDAlum

We still have our 12-man online dynasty going and I also run a Madden 32-man CFM. Put me in the category of thinking NCAA is flat out a better game than Madden. The on the field game play is just more rewarding. I can actually play defense against another user in NCAA, which is what I pride myself on being able to do. Just finished a 16-10 B1G slugfest between Rutgers & Michigan State. Makes me so sad this game is gone

I'm in 3 different dynasties and I hope the servers stay up for a while because it's still a blast.

Tapatalk on Samsung Note II

[bucknut7]

Quote: Originally Posted by jhogan3132

I'm in 3 different dynasties and I hope the servers stay up for a while because it's still a blast. Tapatalk on Samsung Note II

How long do servers generally stay up in these situations?

[TimLawNYC]

Quote: Originally Posted by RedSoxFox7

Given the reward here would be selling NCAA games and other merchandise featuring player likenesses indefinitely (rather than suspending jersey sales like they did recently), I'm gonna go ahead with the only reasonable position that EA and CLC realize they were violating IP for over a decade.

That's not even CLOSE to a safe assumption, and FAR from "the only reasonable position" here. There are many reasons a party to litigation might choose to settle before trial, even if they are sure that they are "right" on the facts or the law. Maybe they just don't want to deal with the headache anymore. Maybe they're sick of paying attorney fees and don't see the trial concluding anytime soon (they might even believe that they can get out of the suit cheaper with a settlement than with a victory at trial due to these fees if the anticipate significant delays in the resolution of the case). Maybe they think they are objectively "right", but the judge has given them cause to believe they could still lose at trial. Many companies are just risk averse and want some certainty, and are willing to accept a reasonable settlement to get that certainty (for example, imagine a defendant in a suit with $50 million at stake, whose attorney advises that he thinks their position is very strong and that there is probably an 85-90% chance that they win at trial and end up paying nothing, but they can settle the case now for $5 million and just be done with it. Many companies would take the settlement in that case because they value the certainty of knowing what they'll pay over the risk of either paying nothing or $50 million down the road, even if the chances of paying the $50 million are only 10%). There are many considerations that go into whether to settle a case, and many of those reasons have nothing to do with whether or not the client has decided that they acted improperly.

[RedSoxFox7]

Quote: Originally Posted by TimLawNYC

That's not even CLOSE to a safe assumption, and FAR from "the only reasonable position" here. There are many reasons a party to litigation might choose to settle before trial, even if they are sure that they are "right" on the facts or the law. Maybe they just don't want to deal with the headache anymore. Maybe they're sick of paying attorney fees and don't see the trial concluding anytime soon (they might even believe that they can get out of the suit cheaper with a settlement than with a victory at trial due to these fees if the anticipate significant delays in the resolution of the case). Maybe they think they are objectively "right", but the judge has given them cause to believe they could still lose at trial. Many companies are just risk averse and want some certainty, and are willing to accept a reasonable settlement to get that certainty (for example, imagine a defendant in a suit with $50 million at stake, whose attorney advises that he thinks their position is very strong and that there is probably an 85-90% chance that they win at trial and end up paying nothing, but they can settle the case now for $5 million and just be done with it. Many companies would take the settlement in that case because they value the certainty of knowing what they'll pay over the risk of either paying nothing or $50 million down the road, even if the chances of paying the $50 million are only 10%). There are many considerations that go into whether to settle a case, and many of those reasons have nothing to do with whether or not the client has decided that they acted improperly.

All of these maybes ignore the massive windfall EA would have if they were to win the case.

Everything you've just said is true in the general case - a settlement isn't inherently an admission of fault. The problem here is we're not speaking in general, we're specifically talking about the O'Bannon case, in which EA/CLC would have HUGE gains if they were to win.

It's not a tacit admission of guilt, but it's a pretty clear statement of where they expected the ruling to fall.

[BLACKHORSE09]

The games would continue to be sub par every year until people just stopped buying them anyways. They had no competition which led them to be pretty god dam complacent with whatever they spit out each year, a lot of aspects just got worse and honestly I think Ultimate Team and Single Season was just silly. Add some spectating top ranked teams (although I feel like ddosing or something could potentially be a problem) or some coop online or something impressive. Selling packs of virtual cards for like 40 bucks is just weird.

[ftball11]

The problem is not just the former athletes and their $40 million settlement, the problem is gamers as well. Don’t forget, EA settled a class-action suit with gamers for $27 million. EA is going to payout $67 million and to add icing on the cake, now the NCAA is suing them. Due to the liability, I guarantee you no company will ever produce a college sports game and the NCAA will never license to a video-game maker again.

[RedSoxFox7]

Quote: Originally Posted by ftball11

The problem is not just the former athletes and their $40 million settlement, the problem is gamers as well. Don’t forget, EA settled a class-action suit with gamers for $27 million. EA is going to payout $67 million and to add icing on the cake, now the NCAA is suing them. Due to the liability, I guarantee you no company will ever produce a college sports game and the NCAA will never license to a video-game maker again.

That's a really dumb guarantee to be making when just a small change to the NCAA's amateurism rules could change everything and allow companies like EA and 2K to license player likenesses.

It's an even dumber guarantee to be making when there stands a good chance the Supreme Court will force the NCAA to make that change.

[Cardot]

Quote: Originally Posted by BLACKHORSE09

honestly I think Ultimate Team and Single Season was just silly.

More hate for Single Season? This was minimal effort to develop. It is merely a stripped down dynasty mode. For those of us who don't get into the recruiting aspect of the game, this is a very nice option.