Home
NCAA Football 14 News Post



In case you've been living under a rock (or you just don't care), the NCAA and Ed O'Bannon have been in a legal war for a few years now. This has effectively ended the NCAA Football and NCAA Basketball franchises for the time being as the case works its way up the courts. Today, we're one step closer to the case going to the Supreme Court, as the 9th Court Circuit of Appeals ruled on the case.

Quote:
"We conclude that the plaintiffs have shown that they are injured in fact as a result of the NCAA’s rules having foreclosed the market for their NILs in video games. We therefore do not reach the thornier questions of whether participants in live TV broadcasts of college sporting events have enforceable rights of publicity or whether the plaintiffs are injured by the NCAA’s current licensing arrangement for archival footage"

Indeed, the 'number one factor holding back NCAA video game growth' as described by EA was the inability to use college athlete's actual likenesses in their games.

In the ruling, the court upheld the original ruling by Judge Claudia Wilken in saying:

Quote:
"The district court found that it is entirely possible that the NCAA will resume its support for college sports video games at some point in the future, given that the NCAA found such games to be profitable in the past, and that finding of fact was not clearly erroneous. Given the NCAA’s previous, lengthy relationship with EA and the other evidence presented, it was reasonable for the district court to conclude that the NCAA may well begin working with EA or another video game company in the future."

It would seem the crux of the matter at this point for the return of NCAA video games is the NCAA allowing a few things. First, allowing video games to be made again -- as the NCAA currently has a policy in place which doesn't allow for that. Second, the rules on athletes NILs being used would have to be changed. Third, compensation rules would have to be finalized.

What is more likely is that the NCAA will take this matter all the way to the Supreme Court as they have alluded to. A Supreme Court ruling could jeopardize the entire system of amateurism the NCAA has built, although there is no real beat on how the Supreme Court might rule since the case hasn't been argued.

As far as a return of NCAA Football goes, this case continues to hold up any possibility of that because it is preventing any of the three questions above from being definitively answered. Not only does this case need a final resolution, but systems will need to be put in place for the games to have a chance at returning. At this point, you are easily 24-36 months away from that becoming a reality on any fast-tracked solution sans a miracle, which puts the arrival date of any future game years into the future.

Game: NCAA Football 14Reader Score: 8/10 - Vote Now
Platform: PS3 / Xbox 360Votes for game: 54 - View All
NCAA Football 14 Videos
Member Comments
# 61 canes21 @ 10/09/15 12:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by redsox4evur
Licenses are usually ridiculously priced, I would have to guess.
I don't have a lot of knowledge on it, but I thought I had read that the license got more expensive near the end and ended up not being worth it anymore for basketball. If it was reasonably priced, they'd return, well, if college games return.
 
# 62 Junior Moe @ 10/12/15 10:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by canes21
I don't have a lot of knowledge on it, but I thought I had read that the license got more expensive near the end and ended up not being worth it anymore for basketball. If it was reasonably priced, they'd return, well, if college games return.
I thought that was the case with MLB 2K. 2K signed an exclusive 3rd party deal to freeze out EA. MLB 2K wasn't very good though and MLB The Show destroyed it. On top of the game not selling well they had that expensive license on top of it. Weren't they forced to release MLB 2K13 or something? I was under the impression that CH2K ended because of low sales and MM bowed out a few year later for the same reason. I could be wrong, though...
 
# 63 BJNT @ 10/12/15 12:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GLO
Fair point. To counter, then let them take the money they get paid from their image and use that to pay for their education. (just like the rest of us that had to work full or part time jobs to get through college). I understand it's a fine line argument either way, the thing that bothers me is how often this discussion is framed in the (false) context of these student-athletes not having any money for food or other things. I am also an educator and have known plenty of student athletes that are doing more than fine with all the "extras" that come along with being a high profile college athlete.

As it stands right now the education is "payment" in the form of a scholarship. If they want to make the millions that a coach or college executive make then let them work hard and earn it over time just like those adults did. There is nowhere in the work force where 18, 19 or 20 year old kids can come into an organization and demand to be paid as much as the CEO or top execs, no matter how "famous" they are. (other than Hollywood and I doubt anyone would argue that Hollywood is the structure we should follow for work-force compensation?)

I'm fine with the change to pay the players, but if that happens then remove the scholarships and give them to kids who can't make millions from endorsement deals. If an 18 year old kid gets a 2 million dollar contract from Nike, the $25k tuition shouldn't be a problem.

By arguing that they need to get paid and also keep the scholarships you are de-value-ing the education that the scholarship is paying for. There's no way around it.

Truth is there probably isn't a neat and clean answer for this....
Then you might as well get rid of academic and band scholarships as well. Those kids are getting a free education and won't have pay back student loans just like the kids on athletic scholarships. The only difference is the kid on an academic scholarship can design an app for google play, charge for downloading it, keep the profits and still keep their academic scholarship. The kid on a band scholarship can play a gig at a jazz club, get paid for it and keep their scholarship. Are we going to penalize them too. Because they could clearly pay for their own education as well in those circumstances.
 
# 64 redsox4evur @ 10/12/15 08:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BizDevConglomerate
I truly beleive we, the consumers must stop making excuses for.the game developers and companies. We can say what if all we want, but how many followers does 2k have on their twitter account? Of those how many are begging for a professional football game or follow up to their college basketball series, if not just reopen the servers or remaster older games. BEGGING.
I don't see how we are making excuses for these companies...2K made a professional football game called All-Pro Football, it did NOT sell well. And I can't blame any company not wanting to touch college sports with 100K foot pole because there is a huge chance it will lose money with this case as precedence for likeness issues. The college basketball game as has been discussed was stopped because it was LOSING money. Either because of the license being too expensive or people not buying the game.
 
# 65 redsox4evur @ 10/13/15 12:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BizDevConglomerate
As I stated, that's was then. Look at the amount of people starving for these games. At that moment it was taken for granted to have those titles. Even the MLB game, but my point is to stop giving then money when they don't come through with a title that's:

1. Playable fully out the box
2. Innovative and what the people want.
3. Reflects the mission statement.

We need to be past these companies releasing games every year. They can upgrade on the fly, and provide a software patch for the new year. Especially EA sports. They add very little to their titles year by year, it's time to release on 2-3 yr basis.

As far as you mentioning them losing money, did you buy the game? If you bought the game, you know other will and did also. It's about re-establishing your brand. They quit, while we still shell out the money for these below par games.
That's NEVER going to happen...the leagues and companies will never allow it. EA is a publicly traded company, have fun convincing stockholders they are going to be getting about of half the money they get in dividends every year. And good luck convincing the league that they won't get their cut of royalties from the game every year and they have to wait an extra to get that money back.

It doesn't matter if I bought the game or not. Because the majority of fans didn't buy the game. March Madness averaged 11.3 million viewers this year. And 2010 the last year of a college basketball game the final drew 23.9 million viewers. The game I think sold around 800K copies. That's only 3% of viewers of the final game that year. You need more than 3% of your fans to be buying your game.
 
# 66 Shadymamba @ 10/14/15 12:25 PM
Thanks Ed O'Bannon - if your NBA Career was half decent we probably wouldn't be going through this mess LOL
 
# 67 ODogg @ 10/14/15 05:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BizDevConglomerate
We need to be past these companies releasing games every year. They can upgrade on the fly, and provide a software patch for the new year. Especially EA sports. They add very little to their titles year by year, it's time to release on 2-3 yr basis.
100% disagree...

1. They add enough (most of the time) where you can choose to purchase or not. Usually I believe more than enough is put in the game to purchase.

2. There is nothing at all stopping you from buying every 2 to 3 years. The rest of the gaming world, myself included, shouldn't be punished and not able to buy what we feel is a worthwhile purchase simply because you don't believe it to be.

In fact, I do this with The Show, I am not a huge baseball fan and I don't think it's worth it to buy each year so I buy every other year.

It's utterly ridiculous for you to demand they withhold product, lose money and deprive those of us who enjoy annual updates, and think they are worth it just because in your opinion it doesn't. No ones forcing you to buy annual releases.
 
# 68 spraypaint @ 10/14/15 11:02 PM
EA don't put the names or real faces no way just the numbers and skin color ...
 
# 69 ODogg @ 10/15/15 11:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BizDevConglomerate
You didn't read it bro.
Uh yes, I did. If I'm misunderstanding then tell me what part of what I quoted I am misunderstanding because it seems pretty clear to me from that statement that you are in the camp of "release sports games every 3 years instead of annually" which is, in my opinion, a really dumb idea for everyone involved.
 
# 70 ODogg @ 10/15/15 11:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BizDevConglomerate
���� the companies aren't to blame, it's the consumers who are suckers. Like the saying goes, "a sucker is born every 14 secs".

I'm done, great dialogue.
You are right, we get what we pay for. However, I disagree that you're accusing the buying public of being a sucker for purchasing. Obviously people feel they are getting what they want...if not they wouldn't buy.

And if you're alluding to the fact that the public will just buy anything then you're wrong. The history of gaming is littered with failed systems, failed games, failed add-on products and just about every other failed type of thing one can think of.

You may not like how things are going, and that's your right, but to say others who don't hold the same view is a sucker is very narcissistic I think. To each his or her own I say.
 
# 71 redsox4evur @ 10/15/15 01:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ODogg
Uh yes, I did. If I'm misunderstanding then tell me what part of what I quoted I am misunderstanding because it seems pretty clear to me from that statement that you are in the camp of "release sports games every 3 years instead of annually" which is, in my opinion, a really dumb idea for everyone involved.
Yea I agree after re-reading his post I am also confused because to me he is in that camp.

Also BizDev why would the LEAGUE and the company do it? Nobody would pay for a patch in this day and age. Because we already get patches for free to fix issues, add content (RMPGA), etc. So why would people now all of sudden people pay for a patch? Also these companies would be insane to price these patches at $60 a pop IF they were to go that route. And if they sell the game yearly they do get that $60 for every game sold. You aren't looking at both sides of the argument. Yes the consumers would probably be better off by doing what you suggested. But the company is losing a ton of money doing it for the reason I stated above and I'll state it again, also these companies would be insane to price these patches at $60 a pop IF they were to go that route and when they release a new game it is for $60 per game.
 
# 72 ODogg @ 10/15/15 01:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by redsox4evur
Yea I agree after re-reading his post I am also confused because to me he is in that camp.

Also BizDev why would the LEAGUE and the company do it? Nobody would pay for a patch in this day and age. Because we already get patches for free to fix issues, add content (RMPGA), etc. So why would people now all of sudden people pay for a patch? Also these companies would be insane to price these patches at $60 a pop IF they were to go that route. And if they sell the game yearly they do get that $60 for every game sold. You aren't looking at both sides of the argument. Yes the consumers would probably be better off by doing what you suggested. But the company is losing a ton of money doing it for the reason I stated above and I'll state it again, also these companies would be insane to price these patches at $60 a pop IF they were to go that route and when they release a new game it is for $60 per game.
Even if it was $10 it'd be outrage. Heck, even if they called it a roster upgrade and wanted to charge for it people would be angered and say the rosters suck and why pay for what they can get for free and get better done from the community?

These people who say sports games should release every two or three years should realize that it would make things even worse.

Imagine if the next Madden to come out would be Madden 19 instead of Madden 17. Expectations would be off the charts and no matter what sort of game was delivered people would be very pissed off and underwhelmed.

It's just a really stupid idea I think. If you don't feel there's enough innovation each year then the solution is simple, just buy every couple years or even every 3 years and see the change you want.
 


Post A Comment
Only OS members can post comments
Please login or register to post a comment.