*** May 2010 update ***

Good news! The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled (http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8184a051&template=with-video-with-comments&confirm=true)against the NFL's request for antitrust protection. It might add an extra chance of victory for lawsuits like the one mentioned in this thread. Hopefully one day soon we'll see games like Backbreaker and the NFL2K series come out with full NFL teams and player support. Competition isn't a bad thing after all.


~~~~

Original post:

If you have purchased EA's John Madden football within the last few years, you can sign up to join the on-going class action lawsuit (http://www.gamepolitics.com/2009/08/19/lawyers-class-action-suit-vs-ea-are-seeking-madden-buyers-join)brought against them for alleged unfair business practices:

Gamers who purchased a copy of Madden from August, 2005 onward may be eligible to join a class action suit against publisher Electronic Arts.

Pecover vs. EA (all GP coverage here) is currently proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The suit alleges that EA's exclusive licensing deal with the NFL and NFL Players Association created a monopoly situation which EA exploited by substantially raising the retail price for a copy of Madden.

In a story broken recently by GamePolitics, an expert witness hired by the plaintiffs theorized that EA's exclusive NFL/NFLPA license may have cost consumers nearly a billion dollars. Lawyers for EA have disputed that claim in court documents.

In a press release issued on Friday, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, the law firm representing consumers in the case, provides a link where Madden buyers can learn more about the suit and potentially join as additional plaintiffs.

Lead attorney Steve Berman, quoted in the press release, pulled no punches in his assessment of EA's position regarding Madden:

There is nothing wrong with good, strong competition in a free market, but we believe EA rigged the game to take advantage of consumers.

EA knows that the demand for these games is based on how realistically the players and teams are portrayed. When EA signed into exclusive agreements it knowingly killed the only competing game of comparable quality, [Take-Two's] NFL 2K5.

Because of AVS, I signed up with a class action suit vs. Sony for defective SXRD XBR1 HDTV and it worked out, so who knows? A different kind of case here, but maybe this one will as well. Here's a direct link (http://www.hbsslaw.com/frontend?command=JoinClassAction&iLawsuitId=2062) to the law firm's sign-up page. The monopoly alone is the main thing I hope gets taken down, even if those of us who purchased a copy of Madden don't get much as a result of the lawsuit.

I wonder if they are going after the NFL and NFLPA, since they created the Monopoly in the first place by giving EA exclusive rights.

I wonder if they are going after the NFL and NFLPA, since they created the Monopoly in the first place by giving EA exclusive rights.

That's what I don't understand. People hate on EA for doing what is to them a very smart business move. The NFL and the NFLPA need to be taken to task for this, not EA. Amazing no one seems to really talk about that part and instead focus anger and hate at EA.

> which EA exploited by substantially raising the retail price for a copy of Madden.

Huh? I'm confused - did someone miss the memo that all console games are $60 this gen? Am I somehow missing out on all other retail games being cheaper? :rolleyes:

Anyway, it seems strange to sue EA, the license holder, and not the NFL, the license owner. Here's a related lawsuit that bears watching: http://myteamrivals.typepad.com/cowboyscorner/2009/06/the-nfl-goes-to-the-us-supreme-court-in-antitrust-lawsuit.html.

> which EA exploited by substantially raising the retail price for a copy of Madden.

Huh? I'm confused - did someone miss the memo that all console games are $60 this gen? Am I somehow missing out on all other retail games being cheaper? :rolleyes:

Anyway, it seems strange to sue EA, the license holder, and not the NFL, the license owner. Here's a related lawsuit that bears watching: http://myteamrivals.typepad.com/cowboyscorner/2009/06/the-nfl-goes-to-the-us-supreme-court-in-antitrust-lawsuit.html.

You're joking right? When the other 2k football game was out the competition caused football games to cost 30-40 dollars. The only reason they can charge 60% for basically the same game every year is their monopoly. EA is the one who is directly taking advantage of consumers. NFL did cause it, but EA is the one setting the nice high price point now.

I'll sign up. Time we actually got companies to play fair in the game that is capitalism.

You're joking right? When the other 2k football game was out the competition caused football games to cost 30-40 dollars. The only reason they can charge 60% for basically the same game every year is their monopoly. EA is the one who is directly taking advantage of consumers. NFL did cause it, but EA is the one setting the nice high price point now.

Huh? I don't remember paying 30-40 bucks for an NFL game. Also, how is EA taking advantage of the customer? Last time I recall MS and Sony started this stupid 60 dollar game thing. The third parties followed suit because people are willing to pay for it. I hate the notion from some that they're "being taken advantage of". It's called a free market and if you don't like the pricing then don't buy the product (or buy it used or via trades). I don't like that Apple charges an arm and a leg for an MP3 player and as a result I don't buy one.

The lawsuit goes back to 2004 when 2K issued their NFL football game brand new for $20. To compete, EA dropped the price of its football game to $30. The public benefited from the competition both in price and in having the option of choosing different playing experiences. Sales were closer than ever between the two brands.

Before the next season of new football releases, EA paid for exclusivity to NFL properties for videogames, immediately killing off their main competition in the popular genre. Players not only lost out on the benefits of price warz, but they also lost out on the option of playing an NFL game on their console not named Madden. That's what the litigation is focusing on.

EA tried last year buy 2K for chump change, but it didn't work out. The U.S. district court just refused EA's request to drop the current lawsuit, which now allows it to proceed to trial. Like I said, hopefully the minimum to come out of this is that more companies are allowed to make NFL games.

I always heard the NFL wanted the exclusive deal?


Huh? I don't remember paying 30-40 bucks for an NFL game. Also, how is EA taking advantage of the customer? Last time I recall MS and Sony started this stupid 60 dollar game thing. The third parties followed suit because people are willing to pay for it. I hate the notion from some that they're "being taken advantage of". It's called a free market and if you don't like the pricing then don't buy the product (or buy it used or via trades). I don't like that Apple charges an arm and a leg for an MP3 player and as a result I don't buy one.


The third parties started this $60 next gen tax....MS launch titles were $50, and I remember them even saying they were going to remain that way. Didn't last long though....

NFL2k dropped the MSRP of their product to an unrealistically low level in a desperate bid to gain marketshare, since despite critical acclaim the NFL2k series couldn't compete with Madden in sales. The NFL was not pleased at the devaluing of their product (understandably) and (for the first time) offered up an exclusive license. EA won the bid.

The standard price for all "major" games last gen was $50, and is now $60. This includes every single other iterative sports title, to the best of my knowledge. NFL2k dropped their price below the standard, EA did not set new higher standard.

Whether "the gamer benefitted" or not doesn't matter, the fact of the matter is that EA is pricing their games normally. Whether you or anyone else thinks they are worth that amount is, of course, a matter of opinion.

I can understand new IPO games to cost 60dollars. NFL games... noway. Its just a update roaster and some new features, no way it cost even half as a new blockbuster game to create. 40 dollars should be more than enough, hence how 2k games were able to sell it so cheap.

How can you sue EA and not include the NFL/NFLPA? They're the ones who granted an exclusive contract. I sure don't think that EA held any NFL executives hostage over this. And doesn't the NFL and the NFLPA have the right to determine who can make a game based on their league and players? After all they can claim that it's in their own best interest and have better control over their product by only having one company having their license. This is just frivilous bs. I hope the plantiff has to pay EA's, the NFL's and NFLPA's legal costs.

I can understand new IPO games to cost 60dollars. NFL games... noway. Its just a update roaster and some new features, no way it cost even half as a new blockbuster game to create. 40 dollars should be more than enough, hence how 2k games were able to sell it so cheap.Please see pretty much every other major sports game in existence (NBA, NHL, FIFA, etc) that sell at $60 and tell me why they are different than the NFL. I await your reply with great interest.

Please see pretty much every other major sports game in existence (NBA, NHL, FIFA, etc) that sell at $60 and tell me why they are different than the NFL. I await your reply with great interest.

This.

Fifa and Winning Eleven (PES) up until recently were the same game year after year. Competition didn't help change that much. When the 2K NFL games came out, they only did well because of the $20 buzz, otherwise it was an ok game that is held so high on a pedestal because its trendy to be anti EA.

Please see pretty much every other major sports game in existence (NBA, NHL, FIFA, etc) that sell at $60 and tell me why they are different than the NFL. I await your reply with great interest.

you're getting ripped off. I personally buy the last years sports games for 10bux used.

I'm 100% against the monopoly and exclusive license... Madden 10 is absolute garbage... I can't believe this ever made it out of any sort of testing phase... the amount of errors and bugs is ridiculous... I'm back playing APF 2k8 which is just ridiculous...

Look what happened when the NBA allowed multi-license... EA got whipped big time by 2k...

When the 2K NFL games came out, they only did well because of the $20 buzz, otherwise it was an ok game that is held so high on a pedestal because its trendy to be anti EA.

Or because they played completely different at the time.

:)

You guys forget, EA refused to make games on the Dreamcast because of 2k games competition. Lets face it, EA is evil.

Stupid, and a waste of time. This simple solution to the problem is...stop buying Madden! Their sales go in the crapper, and they dump the team of slugs that have been putting in a half day's work on each year's Madden since around 2005. The NFL has the right to license as many or as few companies to market their product as they wish. Certainly the current situation is pretty stupid, but Madden was on a quality slide long before the exclusive agreement.

The current exclusivity agreement is tantamount to a monopoly on football games. Basically EA can charge whatever it wants for it's product, and can do so without fear of being undercut by competitors offering a similar product at a lower price point.

It's just plain un-American to support a monopoly, especially given the current economic climate.

I really don't see how having exclusive rights to the NFL is any different from other properties like movies or comic books. EA also has an exclusive license to make Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter games. I believe they have James Bond too. What about all the music that's exclusive to one company or another? Should there be a lawsuit to open up the Beatles' catalog to Activision/Neversoft? I don't know why the NFL is singled out here. I guess it's just that gamers know what it was like when there was more than one football game, whereas they have no concept of non-sports competing licensed games.

Look, I don't like EA having exclusive NFL rights either, but these two entities have every right to make such a deal.

<sarcastic rant>

There should be a class action lawsuit about how Nintendo won't license out Mario to Sony.

I want to play a Mario game in full HD on my PS3 dammit and I can't because Nintendo has a Mario monopoly. I bet all Mario related games would be cheaper if they were multi platform.

</sarcastic rant>

I don't like the situation but legally I think it boils down to this:

The NFL et.al. owns the useage rights to players names, likenesses, team emblems, stadiums and therefore they have the ability to sell those rights to the highest bidder. The competition was when the NFL sold these rights, 2K had the same opportunity as EA in purchasing the rights, but did not have the funds. Being that the contract will end at a certain point, if it is recompeted then I don't see there being grounds for decision against EA or the NFL anti-trust wise.

Price wise - Nearly all games this generation are $60 MSRP - even 2k's titles The Bigs2, NBA2K10 retail at $60 so I think they are going to have a hard time saying that EA inflates the price. As far as I recall when there was competition in the NFL space EA still released their titles at standard MSRP( $49.99 on PS2/xbox etc.), and 2K would often release at $10 less. When 2k lowered their price to $20 that was obviously a market share grab and not their standard price.

I would make the case that 2K sports is responsible for EA now holding the exclusive rights to make NFL games. When 2K couldn't grab market share any other way, they got very aggressive with thier pricing. The NFL didn't want to see the value of thier licence fall and responded by selling the exclusive 3rd party rights to the license to the highest bidder.

Also this case is ridiculous because EA does not hold a monopoly on making football games. They only have the rights specifically pertaining to the NFL brand (as well as the CFL, NCAA and arena football rights). There is nothing to stop another company from making an outstanding football game not involving the NFL or it's players. Of course it most likely wouldn't sell as well without the license, but that's the whole point of buying the license in the first place.

I really like this year's Madden (1st time this generation), otherwise I'd be with you guys.

If they give me my money back for madden 2009 and 2008 i'd be happy :/

You really like this years Madden??? Have you not run across any of the bugs regarding challenges and other ridiculousness? This years Madden is a sham... seriously.

Anyway, the lawsuit doesn't make much sense, I admit that. Everyone is just pissed Madden has an exclusive license and puts out **** for games.

Look what happened when the NBA opened up their license, EA got their pants whipped by 2k sports. It'll happen again if the NFL license even opens up again...

I have my suspicions that the NFL won't do a exclusive license again, they can make more by licensing it as needed to the developers...

You really like this years Madden??? Have you not run across any of the bugs regarding challenges and other ridiculousness? This years Madden is a sham... seriously.

Anyway, the lawsuit doesn't make much sense, I admit that. Everyone is just pissed Madden has an exclusive license and puts out **** for games.

Look what happened when the NBA opened up their license, EA got their pants whipped by 2k sports. It'll happen again if the NFL license even opens up again...

I have my suspicions that the NFL won't do a exclusive license again, they can make more by licensing it as needed to the developers...


I really only play games head to head with my friends, do a little franchise mode in single player and will be playing in an online franchise next month. I've ran into a few graphical bugs/flaws that probably should've been fixed, but nothing that really turns me off. To me, the game plays and looks much better than it has any other year.

About 75% of the time I'm playing head to head with my friends and we're loving it. My biggest gripe is the IR that it keeps leaving on my plasma because of the bar that's always displayed on the bottom of the screen.

I too loved the 2K series and I think the quality of football games could greatly benefit if EA didn't have exclusive rights on the NFL. However, I've held off on buying Madden for about 3 years and I just couldn't go another year without a football game. Though it has its shortcomings, I still enjoy it and have fun playing it.

Please see pretty much every other major sports game in existence (NBA, NHL, FIFA, etc) that sell at $60 and tell me why they are different than the NFL. I await your reply with great interest.

you're getting ripped off. I personally buy the last years sports games for 10bux used.

Yes but pretty much all the sports genre games Abaddon listed also drop in price rapidly. For that matter, you can find a great number of games (of any genre) for $10-20 a year later. So your response did not address his question AT ALL.

...Anyway, the lawsuit doesn't make much sense, I admit that. Everyone is just pissed Madden has an exclusive license and puts out **** for games.

Look what happened when the NBA opened up their license, EA got their pants whipped by 2k sports. It'll happen again if the NFL license even opens up again...

I have my suspicions that the NFL won't do a exclusive license again, they can make more by licensing it as needed to the developers...

I agree that the suit doesn't make much sense, and it probably won't hold much water in court. But hopefully it will send the message to the NFL that an open license can benefit the quality of the products they're licensing.

I don't know much about licensing agreements, but if the NFL is worried about price wars devaluing their brand, they should stipulate that any games published have to be sold within a certain dollar amount of the standard MSRP ($60).

Stupid, and a waste of time. This simple solution to the problem is...stop buying Madden! Their sales go in the crapper, and they dump the team of slugs that have been putting in a half day's work on each year's Madden since around 2005. The NFL has the right to license as many or as few companies to market their product as they wish. Certainly the current situation is pretty stupid, but Madden was on a quality slide long before the exclusive agreement.

Agreed 100%

I would make the case that 2K sports is responsible for EA now holding the exclusive rights to make NFL games. When 2K couldn't grab market share any other way, they got very aggressive with thier pricing. The NFL didn't want to see the value of thier licence fall and responded by selling the exclusive 3rd party rights to the license to the highest bidder.

It wasn't just third-party rights though; that was MLB. If it was, we'd probably have seen a revival of the Gameday series at some point. That could have been interesting considering what they did with The Show.

The NFL is a private entity and is free to control the use of their brand as they see fit. Completely in line with this, they should not be receiving any government or municipal subsidization of stadium construction costs etc.

Vote with your wallet.

I'll sign up. Time we actually got companies to play fair in the game that is capitalism.

yeah i hate it when companies try to gain market share legally

Stupid, and a waste of time. This simple solution to the problem is...stop buying Madden! Their sales go in the crapper, and they dump the team of slugs that have been putting in a half day's work on each year's Madden since around 2005. The NFL has the right to license as many or as few companies to market their product as they wish. Certainly the current situation is pretty stupid, but Madden was on a quality slide long before the exclusive agreement.


The problem with that idea is,outside of these little internet forum communities... football guys love Madden.

ok i know i am going to be way out of place because i am going to use some common sense...

Why is it that video games are somehow different from the rest of the world. Used video game sales pure evil, used car sales, used book sales, are OK. Maybe you haven't watched tv before, but have you heard of the phase Offical drink/ball/jersey/anything of the nfl/nba/mlb/etc... but i don't here anything about a class action lawsuit against gatorade etc..
#2 so you people are telling me that if you were in a position to help your company make MILLIONS OF DOLLARS (that i am sure would include a big bonus, raise and promotion in the future) that you would say "I am sorry i am going to have to turn down that offer, due to the fact i want my competitor to still have some market share" ... yeah right, it is just like how everyone says when i am in management i won't do X or Y and then they get there and they do the very things they said they wouldn't because now they are on the other side of the table and can see things from a different point of view..
#3 when did it become wrong for anybody to sell their name/logo/etc.. to someone else and why would you be mad at EA for taking it. If anything, Shouldn't you be harrassing the NFL for doing it?

Waste of time.


Nothing will come of this.

While we're at it, let's sue direct tv for having exclusive rights to sunday ticket, lets sue the nfl for putting other football leagues out of business, and lets sue espn for taking monday night football off free tv. After all the lawsuits are done and all the content providers are driven out of business, we'll all be happy, right? And people wonder why games are $60 and football tickets are even more.

Walt

^^^ That's the idea! In fact, next up I plan to sue you... I tried to create a new Walt O account at this site and was told that you already owned the exclusive rights to the nickname. ;)

I don't know much about licensing agreements, but if the NFL is worried about price wars devaluing their brand, they should stipulate that any games published have to be sold within a certain dollar amount of the standard MSRP ($60).

I'm pretty sure that would be considered price fixing.

You can legally sell a product/license for what ever you want.
You can suggest a retail price that it should be sold for.
You cannot force someone else to sell your product at a specific price or price range.

Where can I donate to EA's legal defense fund? Frivolous class action lawsuits over video games prove it doesn't take a village, it takes a swift kick in the pants.

Simply buy the annual roster update; that's donation enough:

http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/3314/20061032yi3.jpg

Lol, sorry I couldn't resist. :)

Just what we need - more litigation - and for what? A video game franchise. Yeah, we video game players sure are 'victims'. :rolleyes:

yeah i hate it when companies try to gain market share legally

Problem is they're a vertible monopoly.

Don't like NBC? Watch CBS. Don't like Cable, grab satellite or go with a different provider. Don't like the Zune? iPOD. Don't want to see Bruce and Ben in Armageddon, go see deep impact.

Players associations and the leagues are the only ones selling their single, unified product to the masses.

It's have or don't have, and the while we can allow for instances like these where it makes sense for an agency or group of owners to have a monopoly over a product, it should come with strings attached to make sure fair prices and practices are being followed. MS getting the **** kicked out of them in Europe, rightly so, is an example.

Exclusive, 1/2 decade, multi-billion dollar (to price out others) deals are an abuse of a monopoly.

Unfortunately, we haven't really paid much attention to laws on the books since our senators have such deep pockets.

Problem is they're a vertible monopoly.

Don't like NBC? Watch CBS. Don't like Cable, grab satellite or go with a different provider. Don't like the Zune? iPOD. Don't want to see Bruce and Ben in Armageddon, go see deep impact.

Players associations and the leagues are the only ones selling their single, unified product to the masses.

It's have or don't have, and the while we can allow for instances like these where it makes sense for an agency or group of owners to have a monopoly over a product, it should come with strings attached to make sure fair prices and practices are being followed. MS getting the **** kicked out of them in Europe, rightly so, is an example.

Exclusive, 1/2 decade, multi-billion dollar (to price out others) deals are an abuse of a monopoly.

Unfortunately, we haven't really paid much attention to laws on the books since our senators have such deep pockets.

I understand your point, but why are people attacking EA, people should be attacking the NFL, NBA, etc... they are the ones that are selling out, you can't fault EA for taking that deal, anyone would...

I think we are attacking EA because they are the ones developing the game and putting as little effort into it as possible which is obvious because a game made in 2005 is still considered, by most sim players, as the best NFL simulation to date NFL2k5...

I understand your point, but why are people attacking EA, people should be attacking the NFL, NBA, etc... they are the ones that are selling out, you can't fault EA for taking that deal, anyone would...

Because they're going to be easier to sue for engaging in anti-competitive practices and possibly price fixing in the video game market for signing such a deal, then attacking the NFL full on. Makes sense since these people don't have a problem with the NFL, but with how EA is buying up all licensing rights to stiffle game market competition. Going against the NFL and players association would be much more difficult, and isn't the focus of the lawsuit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law

Either way, should be interesting. Lately we've all but forgot about these laws, and looking at the finance and mortgage industry it's done nothing but screw us all.

I think we are attacking EA because they are the ones developing the game and putting as little effort into it as possible which is obvious because a game made in 2005 is still considered, by most sim players, as the best NFL simulation to date NFL2k5...

From wikipedia:

This game is believed by many to be the best NFL simulation game made,[citation needed] with critics and fans alike both highly praising the game.[citation needed]

Yeah, so I don't buy that 1 bit. How much change can you expect from a game that comes out every year. If 2K6 would have came out it would have been the same as 2K5 with minor tweaks. The reasonable expectation is for them to completely overhaul it every four years or so because that seems about the average time it takes to develop games these days.

Please don't quote wikipedia especially entries without citation. That quote means dick and could have been added by EA themselves. 2k6 could have changed little from 2k5 and still been better than Madden 10.

Please don't quote wikipedia especially entries without citation. That quote means dick and could have been added by EA themselves. 2k6 could have changed little from 2k5 and still been better than Madden 10.

Ha you missed the whole point. That is a dick quote from the NFL 2K5 wiki. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESPN_NFL_2K5

i am confused on all the price fixing... http://www.gamestop.com/Catalog/ProductDetails.aspx?product_id=75134

Problem is they're a vertible monopoly.

Don't like NBC? Watch CBS. Don't like Cable, grab satellite or go with a different provider. Don't like the Zune? iPOD. Don't want to see Bruce and Ben in Armageddon, go see deep impact.

Players associations and the leagues are the only ones selling their single, unified product to the masses.

It's have or don't have, and the while we can allow for instances like these where it makes sense for an agency or group of owners to have a monopoly over a product, it should come with strings attached to make sure fair prices and practices are being followed. MS getting the **** kicked out of them in Europe, rightly so, is an example.

Exclusive, 1/2 decade, multi-billion dollar (to price out others) deals are an abuse of a monopoly.

Unfortunately, we haven't really paid much attention to laws on the books since our senators have such deep pockets.

Yeah, but you can't watch the same shows on CBS as you can on NBC. Same with football video games. EA only has rights to NFL-branded video games. Anyone else can make a football game without the license, but they choose not to.

There was no point to miss. Madden stinks like it has every year. It's never been better than 2k5 since 2k5 was released (my opinion, and that of many of my peers, no media statement needed). Madden is an arcade football game for the 'Madden generation' which is evident by the ridiculous reality TV show 'Madden Challenge'. I've been playing madden since 1993, I remember my brother and I being so ecstatic about it. But it's since been outclassed despite having the rights to the NFL/NFLPA.

There was no point to miss. Madden stinks like it has every year. It's never been better than 2k5 since 2k5 was released (my opinion, and that of many of my peers, no media statement needed). Madden is an arcade football game for the 'Madden generation' which is evident by the ridiculous reality TV show 'Madden Challenge'. I've been playing madden since 1993, I remember my brother and I being so ecstatic about it. But it's since been outclassed despite having the rights to the NFL/NFLPA.

You liked 2K5 better because your mom wouldn't give you more than $19.99 to buy a video game. http://illiweb.com/fa/i/smiles/icon_study.png

Yeah, but you can't watch the same shows on CBS as you can on NBC. Same with football video games. EA only has rights to NFL-branded video games. Anyone else can make a football game without the license, but they choose not to.

hey quit using common sense, that is not allowed here..

You liked 2K5 better because your mom wouldn't give you more than $19.99 to buy a video game. http://illiweb.com/fa/i/smiles/icon_study.png

Looks like you lost the argument defaulting to trolling. Good day.

Looks like you lost the argument defaulting to trolling. Good day.


You know you laughed. Admit it.

Just a heads up. I was contacted by the law firm in question today and asked to sign a declaration against EA. Just wanted to give you guys a heads up in case any of you receive a telephone calls about this today.

Madden 2010 rocks! If you guys ruin Madden 2011 then you're all getting sued.

So you're for EA having a monopoly on NFL videogames? I thought you were against going full ******. :)

I wouldn't mind competition that would probably make the price lower and foster some more innovation, rather than the slight improvements in Madden.

However, I have to say I rather enjoy Madden the last few years and although they have cut some things which should remain, it's still worth about $45 for the amount of replay I get out of it.

They right now appear to have 2 teams, on a 2 year cycle developing madden. What you see in each subsequent year is based on the work of different teams. They need to fix that, like GameCast is missing from this years Madden 10, a nice feature to watch your fiends play. Knowing when a friend is playing a game already, huge steps backward. These are the things they need to fix and not regress.

I don't think a lawsuit will help. If the NFL is getting the most out of the use of their license, then that's their call. If people don't like it, buy another one, or write/complain to the NFL.

FIFA and PES are good competing products and it makes both products better. EA paid for the luxury to slack around and the NFL let them.

*** May 2010 update ***

Good news! The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled (http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8184a051&template=with-video-with-comments&confirm=true)against the NFL's request for antitrust protection. It might add an extra chance of victory for lawsuits like the one mentioned in this thread. Hopefully one day soon we'll see games like Backbreaker and the NFL2K series come out with full NFL teams and player support. Competition isn't a bad thing after all.

"class actions are bad no one but lawyers benefit" to quote many on these threads

Bring on NFL 2K - miss the goodness

"class actions are bad no one but lawyers benefit" to quote many on these threads

Did you even read the link?

The ruling has absolutely nothing to do with the OP of this thread and has absolutely nothing to do with any class action lawsuits at all. It's a good ruling, but it stemmed from American Needle vs NFL, not a class action.

Plenty of rulings by the Supreme Court have nothing to do with the many cases they affect from that point forward. That is unless you think that Brown vs. The Board of Education only affects the good people of Topeka, Kansas.

No one is claiming that any other lawsuit on this issue will go against EA or the NFL. However, if the NFL were given antitrust protection by a Supreme Court ruling, there'd pretty much be no hope at all. At least now there is an extra weapon with which to fight the beast.

However, if the NFL were given antitrust protection by a Supreme Court rulingYou mean like Major League Baseball enjoys? The same MLB that has frozen EA out of making games for their league?

I don't really care for videogame football, but I'd be really happy to see the NFL's Sunday Ticket opened up to cable operators. At least everyone can buy Madden.

Plenty of rulings by the Supreme Court have nothing to do with the many cases they affect from that point forward. That is unless you think that Brown vs. The Board of Education only affects the good people of Topeka, Kansas.

This is a non-sequitor. coneyparlegbrought up class action lawsuits as a direct response to your previous post - which had nothing to do with class action lawsuits.

No one is claiming that any other lawsuit on this issue will go against EA or the NFL. However, if the NFL were given antitrust protection by a Supreme Court ruling, there'd pretty much be no hope at all. At least now there is an extra weapon with which to fight the beast.

And none of this was made posssible through class action lawsuits.

I'm sorry, but isn't the term 'non sequitur'. I know you love that word and these threads, so I figured I'd help your spelling out.

yep correct I did not read anything beyond the name of this thread and a brief skin of the post prior to mine

sue me

I never have liked the madden series, I always played the 2k games...therefore I dont think I've had a football game since about....2k5?

I'm sorry, but isn't the term 'non sequitur'.

Yes. Yes it is. You win 100 internets.

I know you love that word and these threads, so I figured I'd help your spelling out.

Chasing me to different threads to point out spelling errors? Awww, aren't you the cutest wittle thing...

Yes. Yes it is. You win 100 internets.

Well, whenever I use big words to sound smart and mispell them, then I feel really, really stupid.


Chasing me to different threads to point out spelling errors? Awww, aren't you the cutest wittle thing...

I'd $%^& me.

I'm gonna bow out so I don't get any more points deducted from my forum license.

Well, whenever I use big words to sound smart and mispell them, then I feel really, really stupid. [...] Good luck in you're quest of always being right though.

How do you feel when you use small words and misspell them?

All this discussion of mis(s)pelling aside...I think the recent court ruling is interesting, but it is unclear what the implications would be for video game licensing. Would a company have to negotiate with each team? If all teams were not present, how might this relate to the player's union? Would teams just have the city name and the up-to-date rosters of those unlicensed teams?

All this discussion of mis(s)pelling aside...I think the recent court ruling is interesting, but it is unclear what the implications would be for video game licensing.

I agree. Right now, you may not have much choice if you want a licensed game, but the ones that are licensed have the full teams and rosters. Is it possible that could disappear?

Some people automatically cheer when corporations lose in court. I'd rather look at the implications.

Would a company have to negotiate with each team? If all teams were not present, how might this relate to the player's union?

Both good questions. I don't even have a guess.

Would teams just have the city name and the up-to-date rosters of those unlicensed teams?

Aren't the rosters part of the team? I think that they'd just have the city name and bogus rosters (with real stats possibly). I could have sworn that this was the scenrio in earlier games, but I'm very likely mistaken.

Additional questions:

Could this lead to a business model where individual team rosters would need to be purchased as DLC? (doubtful, but not impossible).

Could this lead to different teams having different license costs and agreements?

Awesome, another class action suit filed for misguided reasons and completley lacking in merit.

If you guys think the NFL/EA partnership is ruining the video games representing the sport - then you should try out Tiger Woods PGA Tour series.

I have last years edition and it BARELY even tries to simulate the actual PGA Tour. In my "season", Phil Mickelson won the US Open by shooting a -28!!! For those that don't know, the US Open is typically won with a score of 3 or 4 under. Sometimes the winner is even par. 28 under??

It's equivilant to playing the Super Bowl in Madden and having the computer opponent drop 10 TDs on you.

How would you feel about Madden if you had to score 77 points to win the Super Bowl?