IS MADDEN WORTH A BILLION DOLLARS?

[RCM]

Holy shit, I hope this isn't true. Not because I like football games but because I fucking hate EA. THere is a rumor that EA wants to pay out a billion dollars to the NFL players association so that they can get exclusive rights to all the players for their videogames thus shutting out any and all competitors for the next 4 years. Does Madden really pull that much cash in for EA? I know they have been recyling the same shitty engine since 1999. I am sure they save money that way, but a billion fucking dollars Dr. Evil? That's crazy. If they are willing to pay out a billion for the rights to players Madden is way larger then I ever imagined. I am pretty sure the US market pretty much makes Madden the powerhouse it currently is (football is different everywhere else in the world after all). I can't see their closest competitor, Sega, as a threat. While they match in quality (from what i've been told) they clearly do not match in sales. Is EA getting cold feet about the new ESPN NFL football title for xbox? I seriously doubt it even though it looks in incredible. I understand that other companies can still create football titles, but I also understand that for whatever reason not having real players seriously detracts from the overall experience. I hope this doesn't happen. This could help destroy videogames as we know it. Is Nintendo going to buy the copyrights to 3D platform titles so nobody else can make them anymore? Can Sega buy the rights to all 3D fighters and 3D racers to help insure that nobody can make them anymore? I understand those examples are a bit different from the issue at hand, but I think you get the idea. I fucking hate EA. Check this link

http://www.gamespot.com/news/2004/05/18/news_6098784.html

THE ONE, THE ONLY- RCM

[Darkness X]

Hell no! I think that is insane, paying that much for player rights! I don't care about football games, but isn't this somewhat of a monopoly?

[scooterb23]

I think you're taking this a little too seriously, this won't be the end of all gaming. Although, there are times when I think that blowing up the video game industry (figuratively) and starting over with some fresh ideas might not be a bad idea...

Now, I could see a hardcore sports gamer getting their jock strap in a bunch over this. But that's about as far as I think this will really go if it goes through.

If I were in charge of the ESPN sports franchise though...I would put bids in on every other sport in existence tomorrow...

[petewhitley]

Ha ha ha. Brilliant. Man, that would be alotta spread. Crazy money, but if they could do it, Madden would be the ONLY game in town. Brilliant, but that kinda cash is insane...

[chrisbid]

that is terrible news, im sure the NFL would step in and try to stop it though, as this would not only spell the end for football simulations, but also more arcade style games like NFL Blitz, Backyard football, and other licensed games

[Cmosfm]

Dude, for a billion dollars, I'll organize my own juvenile football team, train them, make them the best juvenile team EVER and GIVE THEM to EA.

Actually, maybe I could do that for free....sounds like fun. but that means I have to work....hmmmm......meh, nevermind.

[Half Japanese]

Ah, I remember the old days of renting Baseball Stars on my NES. Who the fuck needs the Braves or the Yankees when you have the Real Runners and the Magic Bananas? I think I may be asking too much though, as the average idiot these days would rather see the holes in a player's jersey than have a little bit of fun with a game. If EA ever wonders why it gets backlash from a lot of hardcore-types (which, by the way, I don't proclaim myself to be), they will have no one to blame but themselves...at which point they'll return to lighting $1,000 cigars with $100 bills and shit out another game with updated rosters.

[XtremeGamerz]

would be nice to make that much off your name :roll:

[AB Positive]

from a sports side of things, no way in hell this goes through. EA has to pay quite a bit for the right for Madden alone, and I'm willing to bet that the NFL makes more money than what EA's offering from all the other companies getting the NFLPA rights. No chance in hell this goes through.


-AG

[Sylentwulf]

No way it will happen. I don't think it's even remotely legal either. If the deal went through 10 different videogame companies would have them in court by the end of the week.

[Griking]

Why would it be illegal? The NFLPA has the power to license its property to whoever they like. If EA makes a sweatheart offer for an exclusive deal then why couldn't the NFLPA take it if they thought it was worth it to them? Exclusive deals are made all the time, especially in the gaming industry. As much as I hate EA I think it would be a brilliant deal to make if they were able to afford it (which honestly I hightly doubt that they can). It wouldn't prevent other companies from miking football games, they's just have to fill the rosters with made up names. It's been done before plenty of times.

[chadtower]

It probably wouldn't work because no one would spend millions developing a game engine like that for ESPN or the other Madden competitors and then sign a single game deal with the NFLPA. Rest assured Madden's competitors all have multiple game license deals and Madden would just have to wait until all of those ran out.

[anagrama]

All it would mean is a return to the days of non-licensed sports games using phonetic spellings or otherwise *similar* names instead of the real ones.

[sisko]

All it would mean is a return to the days of non-licensed sports games using phonetic spellings or otherwise *similar* names instead of the real ones.

Heh, this reminds me of the "Sixty Whiners" in EAs Mutant League Football that I just popped in.

In reality, this deal won't happen.

This series just needs to DIE.

[zmweasel]

Holy shit, I hope this isn't true. Not because I like football games but because I fucking hate EA. THere is a rumor that EA wants to pay out a billion dollars to the NFL players association so that they can get exclusive rights to all the players for their videogames thus shutting out any and all competitors for the next 4 years. Does Madden really pull that much cash in for EA?

Yes, Madden really pulls in that much cash for EA. Each yearly installment typically sells more than two million copies, and the overall sales make it one of the biggest videogame franchises ever. A billion-dollar deal to essentially drive EA's competitors out of the business would almost certainly pay for itself (although Madden already crushes the competition at retail).


I know they have been recyling the same shitty engine since 1999.

I have to disagree with you here. Madden's engine is hardly "shitty," nor has it been simply recycled from year to year. Compare the Madden that launched with the PS2 to the most recent installment and you'll find the latter has drastically improved graphics and gameplay.

Recycling established game technology is hardly exclusive to EA. It's become a virtual requirement in the current environment of game development. The average videogame budget has moved into eight figures, while the average price of a videogame has gone DOWN.

In fact, the current economics of the game industry are totally fucked up, and we're LONG overdue for a correction, in the form of higher MSRPs and/or Phantom-esque distribution to eliminate the expenses of retail and packaging. But that's another topic.


This could help destroy videogames as we know it. Is Nintendo going to buy the copyrights to 3D platform titles so nobody else can make them anymore? Can Sega buy the rights to all 3D fighters and 3D racers to help insure that nobody can make them anymore?

You can't "buy" a copyright to a game genre. You're comparing apples and oranges.

-- Z.

[RCM]

Zmweasel wrote:


Yes, Madden really pulls in that much cash for EA. Each yearly installment typically sells more than two million copies, and the overall sales make it one of the biggest videogame franchises ever. A billion-dollar deal to essentially drive EA's competitors out of the business would almost certainly pay for itself (although Madden already crushes the competition at retail).

If Madden is "only" selling 2 million copies per year then that wouldnt be a smart move for EA. Even though we pay $49.99 plus tax at retail that doesn't mean EA is getting all of the money. I agree, as I did in my first post that it is an odd move because Madden soundly beats the competition year after year with the exception of the year 2000 when the Sega NFL series (DC) outsold Madden(PS2). But that was due more to the low installed base then anything else.


I have to disagree with you here. Madden's engine is hardly "shitty," nor has it been simply recycled from year to year. Compare the Madden that launched with the PS2 to the most recent installment and you'll find the latter has drastically improved graphics and gameplay.

Recycling established game technology is hardly exclusive to EA. It's become a virtual requirement in the current environment of game development. The average videogame budget has moved into eight figures, while the average price of a videogame has gone DOWN.

In fact, the current economics of the game industry are totally fucked up, and we're LONG overdue for a correction, in the form of higher MSRPs and/or Phantom-esque distribution to eliminate the expenses of retail and packaging. But that's another topic.

I never implied that EA was the only developer to tweak or recycle a game engine. To further explain myself, If EA does indeed make billions off of the Madden Franchise then I would personally like to see an engine that "couldn't" or "shouldn't" be able to be done on whatever system it's running on. In other words, I want to see the development of stunning game engines every year (which i know wont happen). I view it as being lazy when one of the top game developers does'nt go above and beyond smaller developers with less resources. And yes I understand that it cuts into their profits. EA has the funds to develop specific graphic engines for Gamecube, PS2, and Xbox. But it doesn't. PLease don't tell me that Madden on Xbox is an awesome engine for that particular system. It's just my opinion though, I respect yours but don't agree totally.



You can't "buy" a copyright to a game genre. You're comparing apples and oranges.

I acknowledged in my original post that they were different check this out

I wrote:

This could help destroy videogames as we know it. Is Nintendo going to buy the copyrights to 3D platform titles so nobody else can make them anymore? Can Sega buy the rights to all 3D fighters and 3D racers to help insure that nobody can make them anymore? I understand those examples are a bit different from the issue at hand, but I think you get the idea.

I think if this rumor turns out to be true it (copyrighting a new genre) could be possible. Hopefully certain game genres have yet to be created. Who's to say that somebody won't look at what EA is rumored to be doing and copyright something new? I will admit that as of today, I don't think any company could copyright a genre new or old. But if this EA thing goes through who knows? One crazy move could create even crazier practices in the industry. That was the point I was trying to make.

Like I said before, I sure hope this isn't true. It probably isn't true. But it would be truly insane if EA pulls this off

THE ONE, THE ONLY- RCM

[RCM]

Zmweasel wrote:


Yes, Madden really pulls in that much cash for EA. Each yearly installment typically sells more than two million copies, and the overall sales make it one of the biggest videogame franchises ever. A billion-dollar deal to essentially drive EA's competitors out of the business would almost certainly pay for itself (although Madden already crushes the competition at retail).

If Madden is "only" selling 2 million copies per year then that wouldnt be a smart move for EA. Even though we pay $49.99 plus tax at retail that doesn't mean EA is getting all of the money. I agree, as I did in my first post that it is an odd move because Madden soundly beats the competition year after year with the exception of the year 2000 when the Sega NFL series (DC) outsold Madden(PS2). But that was due more to the low installed base then anything else.


I have to disagree with you here. Madden's engine is hardly "shitty," nor has it been simply recycled from year to year. Compare the Madden that launched with the PS2 to the most recent installment and you'll find the latter has drastically improved graphics and gameplay.

Recycling established game technology is hardly exclusive to EA. It's become a virtual requirement in the current environment of game development. The average videogame budget has moved into eight figures, while the average price of a videogame has gone DOWN.

In fact, the current economics of the game industry are totally fucked up, and we're LONG overdue for a correction, in the form of higher MSRPs and/or Phantom-esque distribution to eliminate the expenses of retail and packaging. But that's another topic.

I never implied that EA was the only developer to tweak or recycle a game engine. To further explain myself, If EA does indeed make billions off of the Madden Franchise then I would personally like to see an engine that "couldn't" or "shouldn't" be able to be done on whatever system it's running on. In other words, I want to see the development of stunning game engines every year (which i know wont happen). I view it as being lazy when one of the top game developers does'nt go above and beyond smaller developers with less resources. And yes I understand that it cuts into their profits. EA has the funds to develop specific graphic engines for Gamecube, PS2, and Xbox. But it doesn't. PLease don't tell me that Madden on Xbox is an awesome engine for that particular system. It's just my opinion though, I respect yours but don't agree totally.



You can't "buy" a copyright to a game genre. You're comparing apples and oranges.

I acknowledged in my original post that they were different check this out

I wrote:

This could help destroy videogames as we know it. Is Nintendo going to buy the copyrights to 3D platform titles so nobody else can make them anymore? Can Sega buy the rights to all 3D fighters and 3D racers to help insure that nobody can make them anymore? I understand those examples are a bit different from the issue at hand, but I think you get the idea.

I think if this rumor turns out to be true it (copyrighting a new genre) could be possible. Hopefully certain game genres have yet to be created. Who's to say that somebody won't look at what EA is rumored to be doing and copyright something new? I will admit that as of today, I don't think any company could copyright a genre new or old. But if this EA thing goes through who knows? One crazy move could create even crazier practices in the industry. That was the point I was trying to make.

Like I said before, I sure hope this isn't true. It probably isn't true. But it would be truly insane if EA pulls this off

THE ONE, THE ONLY- RCM

[Oobgarm]

Then only thing is that EA isn't copyrighting a genre, so I don't see how things could go that way. They're simply making a move that solidifies a particualr facet of their product--and it's a major facet to boot. Making their product superior may make it look like they're copyrighting a genre, but all they're really doing is taking away the other's ability to compete on somewhat level ground, if the ground was even level to begin with. More power to 'em, I say. Stuff like this, like it or not, is what drives the industry.

The move won't prevent others from publishing football titles, only prevent them from using player names. What about the days when all we had were numbers to identify the players? What about Ken Griffey Jr MLB on SNES with similar sounding names? In most cases back then the companies couldn't afford the players license, sometimes to getting the rights for the teams, either.

[RCM]

Oobgarm, I am pretty sure that i didn't say that EA would be buying the copyrights to the genre. In this case though, they might as well be doing so. ALso, I was merely trying to point out that if this really happened, it could open the flood gates for even crazier practices possibly destroying Videogames as we know it. That doesn't mean that the industry would crash, it just means that it would be or could be totally different.

I wrote:
I understand that other companies can still create football titles, but I also understand that for whatever reason not having real players seriously detracts from the overall experience.

I actually just read that this rumor is COMPLETELY FALSE. Thank the maker

THE ONE, THE ONLY- RCM

[zmweasel]

If Madden is "only" selling 2 million copies per year then that wouldnt be a smart move for EA. Even though we pay $49.99 plus tax at retail that doesn't mean EA is getting all of the money. I agree, as I did in my first post that it is an odd move because Madden soundly beats the competition year after year with the exception of the year 2000 when the Sega NFL series (DC) outsold Madden(PS2). But that was due more to the low installed base then anything else.

The rumor alleged that it was a four-year deal, at $250M per year. And that's certainly more than an average Madden brings in. (EA as a whole tops $1 billion a year in sales.)

Then again, EA would likely see an increase in Madden sales, since it would be the only football game with the NFL license, and probably receive even more NFL co-promotion than it already does.

While the $1 billion figure is probably too high, the deal itself is a rumor that's very easy to believe. EA is a ruthless company that will do anyting to get what it wants. Just ask Microsoft, which had to snuff its own sports games in order to get EA on-board Xbox Live.


To further explain myself, If EA does indeed make billions off of the Madden Franchise then I would personally like to see an engine that "couldn't" or "shouldn't" be able to be done on whatever system it's running on. In other words, I want to see the development of stunning game engines every year (which i know wont happen). I view it as being lazy when one of the top game developers does'nt go above and beyond smaller developers with less resources. And yes I understand that it cuts into their profits. EA has the funds to develop specific graphic engines for Gamecube, PS2, and Xbox. But it doesn't. PLease don't tell me that Madden on Xbox is an awesome engine for that particular system. It's just my opinion though, I respect yours but don't agree totally.

It would be impossible to pump out a "stunning" new game engine on a 12-month development cycle without spending obscene amounts of cash and/or destroying the lives of the development team. A triple-A game needs at least 18 to 24 months to be whipped into shape.

I give credit to the Madden developers for cramming whatever they can into each development cycle. The improvements would seem more dramatic if they came all at once instead of over two or three years, but the realities of the market won't allow Madden to "take a year off."

I also can't fault EA for developing Madden on the lowest-common-denominator PS2 and porting upward. Developing separate engines for all three systems would, again, require tremendous amounts of time and money. And why go to all that effort when the PS2 version will easily outsell the Xbox and GameCube versions combined? It doesn't make financial sense.

Incidentally, why do you think the Xbox version of Madden DOESN'T look awesome?


I acknowledged in my original post that they were different check this out

You said that your examples were "a bit different," when in fact they're completely different. And I still don't see how you're able to make a connection between the purchase of exclusive interactive rights to a sports organization and the copyright of an entire game genre.

-- Z.

[spoon]

EA has the exclusive right to Nascar games.

[RCM]

ZMWeasel Wrote:


The rumor alleged that it was a four-year deal, at $250M per year. And that's certainly more than an average Madden brings in. (EA as a whole tops $1 billion a year in sales.)

Then again, EA would likely see an increase in Madden sales, since it would be the only football game with the NFL license, and probably receive even more NFL co-promotion than it already does.

You say that Madden sells 2 million copies per year correct? Even if EA received $50 per copy that does not add up to $250 million per year. Sorry. While Madden sales certainly would increase, I wonder by how much. They do take in the majority of sales for football titles. I wonder if the added expense would have justified it if the rumor had proved to be true.


It would be impossible to pump out a "stunning" new game engine on a 12-month development cycle without spending obscene amounts of cash and/or destroying the lives of the development team. A triple-A game needs at least 18 to 24 months to be whipped into shape.

Incidentally, why do you think the Xbox version of Madden DOESN'T look awesome?

I guess it wouldn't be impossible to pump out a stunning game engine. It is possible. You admit it is. As for the Xbox version of Madden, it looks good for a PS2 game, but it could have been better. You said it yourself, Madden is developed for the lowest system in terms of power. I don't like slightly enhanced ports which is the way i view Madden for Xbox. Compared to what Xbox is capable of doing I think Madden is average at best. You will see it this year when Madden is released along with ESPN NFL 2005. That title looks incredible.


You said that your examples were "a bit different," when in fact they're completely different. And I still don't see how you're able to make a connection between the purchase of exclusive interactive rights to a sports organization and the copyright of an entire game genre.

I do view them as a being a bit different. I suppose our definitions of "a bit" differ a bit. If you can't see a connection, look to Spoons post. As he points out EA has exclusive rights to the NASCAR racing games. As far as im concerned NASCAR racing titles are atleast a subgenre that cannot be touched by anyone else for some time. While that's still a bit different then the original rumor, it isn't totally off base Mr. Zach!

THE ONE, THE ONLY- RCM

[zmweasel]

You say that Madden sells 2 million copies per year correct? Even if EA received $50 per copy that does not add up to $250 million per year. Sorry. While Madden sales certainly would increase, I wonder by how much. They do take in the majority of sales for football titles. I wonder if the added expense would have justified it if the rumor had proved to be true.

The "average" Madden sells about two million copies per year, yep. And while I agree that a billion bucks would've been too much to pay, I'm sure there's a lower figure that EA could justify.


I guess it wouldn't be impossible to pump out a stunning game engine. It is possible. You admit it is.

To turn out a triple-A game in a 12-month timeframe would be possible only by assigning great gobs of programmers and graphic artists to the project, which would be very expensive--and there's always a point at which more bodies actually slow down the development process instead of speeding it up. I can't think of a triple-A title in this generation of hardware that was created from scratch in 12 months. Expansions, sequels, but not engines from scratch.


You will see it this year when Madden is released along with ESPN NFL 2005. That title looks incredible.

I welcome any game that can make Madden look bad. That'll give EA a kick in the ass to do better, as SlugFest did to the now-defunct Triple Play.


I do view them as a being a bit different. I suppose our definitions of "a bit" differ a bit. If you can't see a connection, look to Spoons post. As he points out EA has exclusive rights to the NASCAR racing games. As far as im concerned NASCAR racing titles are atleast a subgenre that cannot be touched by anyone else for some time.

The NASCAR deal is, as the rumored NFL deal was, the purchase of exclusive interactive rights to a sports organization.

So you're defining NASCAR-licensed racing games as a "sub-genre" to make your theory fit? By that logic, since Vivendi Universal owns the rights to the Van Helsing movie, Van Helsing tie-in games are an action/adventure sub-genre.

Again, I don't see the connection between licensed properties and the copyrighting of game genres.

-- Z.

[RCM]

ZmWeasel wrote:


The NASCAR deal is, as the rumored NFL deal was, the purchase of exclusive interactive rights to a sports organization.

So you're defining NASCAR-licensed racing games as a "sub-genre" to make your theory fit? By that logic, since Vivendi Universal owns the rights to the Van Helsing movie, Van Helsing tie-in games are an action/adventure sub-genre.

Again, I don't see the connection between licensed properties and the copyrighting of game genres.

You're missing it my friend. Comparing Van Helsing to NASCAR is to quote you before like "comparing apples and oranges." There were companies that made "general" NASCAR (in the vein that EA does now) titles and then there were companies doing titles featuring a single driver. EA bought the rights and shut them (all the other companies) down. Rally racing is a racing subgenre. Futruristic racing is a subgenre (like wipeout). NASCAR stockcar racing is a subgenre to racing. Van Helsing and NASCAR arent the best to compare. What EA and I understand, which you keep missing, is that if you have such rights to a particular sport in essense you are buying out the particular genre that the sport represents. The people that play sports titles demand that they be authentic. THis is evidenced by the EA purchase and the licenses they obtain to make their games. Further more, you completely missed what I spelled out before. I was merely making the point that if this EA deal went through I felt that anything could be possible including the possible copyrighting of new videogame genres. Game companies hold patents for certain videogame subgenres. A few months pack Sega sued sued fox interactive (the makers of the simpson titles) for virtually ripping off Crazy Taxi. Again, I don't feel I am so off base. I hope you finally see the connection and why I used genre copyrighting as an example. Nice try. Not really. Try harder grasshopper.

THE ONE, THE ONLY- RCM

[buttasuperb]

This series just needs to DIE.

Why, because you don't like football?

[zmweasel]

You're missing it my friend. Comparing Van Helsing to NASCAR is to quote you before like "comparing apples and oranges." There were companies that made "general" NASCAR (in the vein that EA does now) titles and then there were companies doing titles featuring a single driver. EA bought the rights and shut them (all the other companies) down. Rally racing is a racing subgenre. Futruristic racing is a subgenre (like wipeout). NASCAR stockcar racing is a subgenre to racing.

EA didn't "shut all the other companies down." Those other companies were more than able to continue developing and publishing non-licensed stock-car racing games, but (wisely) chose not to.

NASCAR is a license. Van Helsing is a license. Stock-car racing is a genre. Action/adventure games are a genre.


What EA and I understand, which you keep missing, is that if you have such rights to a particular sport in essense you are buying out the particular genre that the sport represents. The people that play sports titles demand that they be authentic. THis is evidenced by the EA purchase and the licenses they obtain to make their games. Further more, you completely missed what I spelled out before. I was merely making the point that if this EA deal went through I felt that anything could be possible including the possible copyrighting of new videogame genres.

If a developer was able to invent a new videogame genre at this point in the industry's history, I would be thrilled to death. I didn't see a single game at E3 that couldn't instantly be lumped into a specific category.

As for sports fans demanding authenticity, you seem to have forgotten the popularity of NBA Street, NFL Blitz, and MLB SlugFest. Unless you're referring strictly to league licenses as opposed to gameplay.

I'm not disagreeing that it's vital for a realistic sports game (as opposed to an arcade-sports title) to be officially licensed, or that EA owning exclusive rights to interactive NFL games would effectively put an end to the competition. But I disagree with your categorization of a license as a genre.


Game companies hold patents for certain videogame subgenres. A few months pack Sega sued sued fox interactive (the makers of the simpson titles) for virtually ripping off Crazy Taxi.

SEGA sued because The Simpsons: Road Rage was a blatant rip-off of Crazy Taxi, NOT because it holds a "patent" on the genre of arcade-style racing games. There's an enormous difference.


Again, I don't feel I am so off base. I hope you finally see the connection and why I used genre copyrighting as an example. Nice try. Not really. Try harder grasshopper.

Actually, you're the one who's supposed to be trying harder to convince me of your argument, since you're the one who started the thread.

And I'm afraid I still don't see any connection between holding an exclusive license to a sports organization and attempting to copyright an entire game genre.

-- Z.

[Ed Oscuro]

Dude, for a billion dollars, I'll organize my own juvenile football team, train them, make them the best juvenile team EVER and GIVE THEM to EA.

Actually, maybe I could do that for free....sounds like fun. but that means I have to work....hmmmm......meh, nevermind.
Work? Nah, you just have to be on the inside track and come up with crazy ass ideas about monopolizing the game industry. That sounds easy :P

[RCM]

ZMWeasil Wrote:


EA didn't "shut all the other companies down." Those other companies were more than able to continue developing and publishing non-licensed stock-car racing games, but (wisely) chose not to.

NASCAR is a license. Van Helsing is a license. Stock-car racing is a genre. Action/adventure games are a genre.

EA certainly did shut out anyone from creating NASCAR stock car racing titles. NASCAR is more then just a license, it's a style of racing that isn't done exactly the same anywhere else. Van Helsing is merely a license. Vivendi Universal just slapped the name on an action title. Now you acknowledge that Stock car racing is some sort of genre? I got the feeling that you had doubt when I put a label on it. Again your argument is flimsy.


I'm not disagreeing that it's vital for a realistic sports game (as opposed to an arcade-sports title) to be officially licensed, or that EA owning exclusive rights to interactive NFL games would effectively put an end to the competition. But I disagree with your categorization of a license as a genre.

We are starting to agree. I don't know if I like that. I'm having fun. I am not categorizing a license as a genre. but as I have said in the case of NASCAR, it is a style of racing that is unique to anything else. The license and the genre go hand and hand in this particular case. I supposed you need to be a fan to understand totally, which I am.



SEGA sued because The Simpsons: Road Rage was a blatant rip-off of Crazy Taxi, NOT because it holds a "patent" on the genre of arcade-style racing games. There's an enormous difference.

Didn't I say that the simpson title ripped off crazy taxi? I swear I did. Check this out:


Sega holds a U.S. patent, known as the '138 patent, on "Crazy Taxi," in which players take the role of a taxi driver who has to accomplish outrageous driving stunts to pick up passengers and quickly deliver them to their destinations

Nuff said MR. Zach, try harder. You can do it.


Actually, you're the one who's supposed to be trying harder to convince me of your argument, since you're the one who started the thread.

And I'm afraid I still don't see any connection between holding an exclusive license to a sports organization and attempting to copyright an entire game genre.

I don't have to convince you of anything Mr. Zach. You've convinced yourself that you are right. I applaud you. In the future though, if you can't see something maybe you should try and open your eyes. Case closed.

THE ONE, THE ONLY- RCM

[zmweasel]

EA certainly did shut out anyone from creating NASCAR stock car racing titles. NASCAR is more then just a license, it's a style of racing that isn't done exactly the same anywhere else. Van Helsing is merely a license. Vivendi Universal just slapped the name on an action title. Now you acknowledge that Stock car racing is some sort of genre? I got the feeling that you had doubt when I put a label on it. Again your argument is flimsy.

When in my earlier posts did I claim that stock-car racing WASN'T a racing genre? I'm disagreeing with your claim that a license equals a genre.


We are starting to agree. I don't know if I like that. I'm having fun.

I don't know that I'd call debate "fun," but it's certainly important.


I am not categorizing a license as a genre. but as I have said in the case of NASCAR, it is a style of racing that is unique to anything else. The license and the genre go hand and hand in this particular case. I supposed you need to be a fan to understand totally, which I am.

Did you feel that Pro Race Driver didn't provide an adequate, "NASCAR-esque" simulation of stock-car racing?


Nuff said MR. Zach, try harder. You can do it.

That patent applies to a specific game, Crazy Taxi, as opposed to the entire arcade-racing genre. Sega hasn't sued over Burnout or Wreckless, despite their obvious similarities to Outrun, because they weren't blatant rip-offs, as was Road Rage.


I don't have to convince you of anything Mr. Zach.

So if you make a sweeping claim -- i.e., "EA is evil," "NASCAR is a sub-genre of racing" -- and someone questions it, you don't feel the need to substantiate the legitimacy of that claim?


You've convinced yourself that you are right. I applaud you. In the future though, if you can't see something maybe you should try and open your eyes. Case closed.

I haven't convinced myself that I'm right, but I'm certainly not convinced of your claim that a license is its own game genre. Here's what you've given me so far:

"NASCAR is a style of racing." Well, no, it's a stock-car racing organization. Other games have simulated stock-car racing without the NASCAR license, just as other games have simulated football without an NFL license, and baseball without an MLB license.

"The license and the genre go hand in hand in this case." Again, I don't disagree with you that a non-NASCAR-licensed stock-car game is doomed to retail failure. That's why the rumor of EA bogarting the NFL license prompted you to start this thread -- because it would have effectively eliminated EA's already-weak competition in the football genre. But I don't feel so strongly about the NASCAR license that I feel it equals its own genre of racing, as you do.

I assume we'll continue agreeing to disagree, and that's fine. Perhaps another time, we can discuss why you feel that EA is evil.

-- Z.

[portnoyd]

I know they have been recyling the same shitty engine since 1999.

I have to disagree with you here. Madden's engine is hardly "shitty," nor has it been simply recycled from year to year. Compare the Madden that launched with the PS2 to the most recent installment and you'll find the latter has drastically improved graphics and gameplay.

This is the only thing I want to comment on, as I'd rather not get jammed in between RCM and Mr. Weasel.

It has been recycled from year to year, ever since the first one 13 years ago. It's still fucking football. It's the same goddamn game from 1991. The sport hasn't changed. The only real improvement was the jump from 2D to 3D, and even that wasn't drastic to the underlying premise. When any other nonsports game is released with the same kind of 'improvements' that the Madden series has been given over the years, it's ripped apart for being the same.

dave

[zmweasel]

It has been recycled from year to year, ever since the first one 13 years ago. It's still fucking football. It's the same goddamn game from 1991. The sport hasn't changed. The only real improvement was the jump from 2D to 3D, and even that wasn't drastic to the underlying premise. When any other nonsports game is released with the same kind of 'improvements' that the Madden series has been given over the years, it's ripped apart for being the same.

dave

The fact that the Madden has gone through several development studios since '91 voids your claim of "recycling," but let me ask you this: have you actually played every installment of Madden, and witnessed the myriad improvements in AI, playcalling, season modes, etc., over the years? The original '91 version is laughably primitive by comparison to the most recent installment. Not just the graphics have changed; every aspect of the gameplay experience has changed, and for the better.

In addition, the sport itself has changed--albeit in minor ways, such as the introduction of the two-point conversion.

-- Z.

[lendelin]

Zmweasel and RCM, you two actually agree about the substantial content of this issue, you just stress two very different aspects of the same problem.

Zmweasel stresses the legal aspect of acquiring the license of a sports organization, while RCM stresses the actual effect of the license purchase on the realistic football genre.

It's indeed non-sense to say that you can legally acquire the rights of a game genre, sub-genre, or sub-sub-genre. Football is much more than NFL in the game universe. Fictional football games, street football, and whatever game developers can come up with is still up for grabs. Game genres don't have property rights, franchises do.

RCM, Zmweasel agrees with you completely what the effects are on the realistic football genre, you put the competition out of business; that's what EA intends to do, that's why they might pay so much money for the license. There is a difference of MONOPOLIZING the football genre which uses real players names/logos and acquiring legal rights to a game genre, however.

It would make a lot of sense for EA to pay this amount of money for the license. Within the next four years the Madden franchise would became synonimous for football games, and after the four years the competition is incredibly weakened to put up a real fight with EA.

The key of the matter is that the right to sell the license is given by the clubs to the national sports organization. If they decide to sell it to one developer, it indeed means a monopoly.

In Germany, the rights to sell soccer licenses to developers is in the hands of the individual clubs, which means that Bayern Munich, Borussia Dortmund and other clubs have their own respective soccer games on the PS2. The Green Bay Packers, and the Dallas Cowboys would have their own games according to this model. I'm not exactly sure how this is legally managed in Germany, and to what extent a game can use players names and logos of other clubs. I don't know what the legal arrangements are, and I don't know about the involvement of the German Soccer Association. Maybe a German like hydrox can shed light on this. I'm German, but living in the US for 15 years made my knowledge level of the German videogame scene almost equal zero.

[portnoyd]

The fact that the Madden has gone through several development studios since '91 voids your claim of "recycling," but let me ask you this: have you actually played every installment of Madden, and witnessed the myriad improvements in AI, playcalling, season modes, etc., over the years? The original '91 version is laughably primitive by comparison to the most recent installment. Not just the graphics have changed; every aspect of the gameplay experience has changed, and for the better.

In addition, the sport itself has changed--albeit in minor ways, such as the introduction of the two-point conversion.

-- Z.

Did these development studios alter the sport of football? No.
Did game interface improvement alter the sport of football? No.
Did the two point conversation leave such a mark to make the game fresh and new by game standards? No.

It's still football. It's still the same. You can't refute that. They're not going to make drastic changes like NFL Blitz did to the game, to make it new. If a game series went on half as long as Madden has without the basics of the game changed, it would get raked over hot coals. I'm thinking along the lines of Tomb Raider as an example.

And no, I'm not the biggest sports fan. Biased! And yes, I don't like EA's business practices. More biased! And I'm more towards the Anti-Sony end. Even more biased! And yes, I'm for roster upgrades as opposed to 'new, full versions' each year. Hopelessly biased!

Just how I feel.

dave

[zmweasel]

It's still football. It's still the same. You can't refute that.

I'm not refuting that American football is mostly the same in 2004 as it was in 1991; I'm refuting your claim that Madden has been "recycled" for all that time.

The 2004 edition of Madden is an exponentially more accurate, realistic, playable, and enjoyable simulation of the sport than the 1991 edition. While some editions have added and/or improved more gameplay features than others, and while the transition from 2D sprites to 3D polygons was rocky, the series only gets better.

-- Z.

[RCM]

Let's start with a quote from your old pal RCM:


I will admit that as of today, I don't think any company could copyright a genre new or old. But if this EA thing goes through who knows? One crazy move could create even crazier practices in the industry. That was the point I was trying to make

You guys clearly cannot read.

ZMWEASEL wrote:


When in my earlier posts did I claim that stock-car racing WASN'T a racing genre? I'm disagreeing with your claim that a license equals a genre.

I think you were a little weird when I mentioned that the NASCAR titles are a subgenre of racing. I will let that slide. Show me where I say license equals a genre. I believe in certain cases it does in part. Can an NFL football simulation be a 100% simulation without the likenesses and names of the players? I'm not talking 99.9% accurate. Im talkign 100%. No more, No less. Those names mean a lot. Developers wouldn't pay out tons of money to the NFLPA if it wasn't important to make their title complete.


I don't know that I'd call debate "fun," but it's certainly important.

I'm having fun. If you have the choice, never do stuff that isn't fun Mr. Zach!


Did you feel that Pro Race Driver didn't provide an adequate, "NASCAR-esque" simulation of stock-car racing?

No I didn't. Play them both and compare. Then get back to me.


That patent applies to a specific game, Crazy Taxi, as opposed to the entire arcade-racing genre. Sega hasn't sued over Burnout or Wreckless, despite their obvious similarities to Outrun, because they weren't blatant rip-offs, as was Road Rage

Is Crazy Taxi genreless? Is that even a word? I don't think so. I feel that Crazy Taxi is more then just "arcade-racing." Anyway, as I understand it a genre is a "distinctive type or category."


Sega holds a U.S. patent, known as the '138 patent, on "Crazy Taxi," in which players take the role of a taxi driver who has to accomplish outrageous driving stunts to pick up passengers and quickly deliver them to their destinations

That seems pretty distinct to me. Wreckless and Burnout are different enough to distinguish themselves i guess.


So if you make a sweeping claim -- i.e., "EA is evil," "NASCAR is a sub-genre of racing" -- and someone questions it, you don't feel the need to substantiate the legitimacy of that claim?

I believe that I have stated my case soundly on every post. You can choose to agree or not.


I haven't convinced myself that I'm right, but I'm certainly not convinced of your claim that a license is its own game genre. Here's what you've given me so far:

"NASCAR is a style of racing." Well, no, it's a stock-car racing organization. Other games have simulated stock-car racing without the NASCAR license, just as other games have simulated football without an NFL license, and baseball without an MLB license.

"The license and the genre go hand in hand in this case." Again, I don't disagree with you that a non-NASCAR-licensed stock-car game is doomed to retail failure. That's why the rumor of EA bogarting the NFL license prompted you to start this thread -- because it would have effectively eliminated EA's already-weak competition in the football genre. But I don't feel so strongly about the NASCAR license that I feel it equals its own genre of racing, as you do.

I assume we'll continue agreeing to disagree, and that's fine. Perhaps another time, we can discuss why you feel that EA is evil.

I recognize that NASCAR Stock car racing is a certain style. You cannot accurately simulate NASCAR stock car racing 100% without the license. You can come close, but it will not be an accurate 100% simulation. Further more, I never said that EA is evil or even implied more then just saying something to the effect that I don't like them. You have to read the posts my friend. I, like Portnoyd, totally dislike their business practices. I really don't like that they seem to cater to casual gamers. Unlike you, I will not put words in anyones mouth, but I believe EA could give a shit about the small but vocal group called hardcore gamers. By the way, in "The Phoenix," which is an awesome book, Leonard Herman writes that (and im paraphrasing) that had Willy Higinbotham copyrighted his Oscilloscope the patent on videogames would have been held by the United States government. So when I tossed a crazy "what if Nintendo copyrighted this or that" it didnt seem so far off base. Even after admiting and agreeing on certain aspects of the debate you still pushed. You try reading the posts before you jump on them Mr. Zach.

ALSO

lendelin wrote:


It's indeed non-sense to say that you can legally acquire the rights of a game genre, sub-genre, or sub-sub-genre

read above. I am not a copyright expert and am pretty sure you guys arent either. I don't think it's so far fetched to think that if a company came up with a totally new genre sharing totally nothing with existing genres that they couldn't copyright their creation. Or perhaps find a loophole or push for change so that they could. That's not to say that people couldnt get around the copyrights later on. Indeed as I stated days ago, I don't think there is a great chance of a company copyrighting a genre coming to pass. I was merely stating, as I have many times on this thread now, that crazy practices can lead to crazier ones. I never went out an said "If EA gets exclusive rights to the NFL players Nintendo can buy a genre."

Hopefully this is my last post on the subject, but I can still go on if I feel the need to. Let it be known that while I feel there are many holes in Mr. Zachs ongoing debate with me, I respect him and his work. Ok, at least some of his work! I am unsure if I will receive shit for that one. Good night, and god bless videogames!

THE ONE, THE ONLY- RCM

[classicb]

no their not worth it. that's it just answering the question.

[zmweasel]

I will admit that as of today, I don't think any company could copyright a genre new or old. But if this EA thing goes through who knows? One crazy move could create even crazier practices in the industry. That was the point I was trying to make

The problem I'm having with your statement is that I don't see anything "crazy" about purchasing the exclusive rights to a sports organization.

Logitech just signed an exclusive endorsement deal with NASCAR for its steering wheels; it doesn't mean that Logitech might now attempt to patent steering wheels. You're making that kind of leap in logic.

I think that your negative feelings toward EA ("fucking hate," as I recall) are leading you to make a connection between two totally unconnected subjects.


I believe in certain cases it does in part. Can an NFL football simulation be a 100% simulation without the likenesses and names of the players? I'm not talking 99.9% accurate. Im talkign 100%. No more, No less. Those names mean a lot. Developers wouldn't pay out tons of money to the NFLPA if it wasn't important to make their title complete.

A football game can be a football game with fictional players. NFL is a "brand" of football, like the CFL, the XFL, the USFL, Arena Football, and the World League of Football. But these are all in the football-game genre, not their own individual genres.


I'm having fun. If you have the choice, never do stuff that isn't fun Mr. Zach!

That's an extremely simplistic world-view, but I'll try.


No I didn't. Play them both and compare. Then get back to me.

I already have played them both. That's why I was asking the question. I thought PRD did a fine job of capturing the essence of stock-car racing, despite its fictional drivers and tracks.


I don't think it's so far fetched to think that if a company came up with a totally new genre sharing totally nothing with existing genres that they couldn't copyright their creation.

As I posted earlier, I would welcome this development with open arms, but I don't see it happening. The most "original" game to come out of E3 was a pinball/strategy hybrid. Neat stuff, but certainly not a totally new genre.


Hopefully this is my last post on the subject, but I can still go on if I feel the need to. Let it be known that while I feel there are many holes in Mr. Zachs ongoing debate with me, I respect him and his work. Ok, at least some of his work!

You're going to have a very difficult existence if you lose respect for anyone who disagrees with you.

-- Z.

[lendelin]

You guys clearly cannot read.

[...]

ALSO

lendelin wrote:


It's indeed non-sense to say that you can legally acquire the rights of a game genre, sub-genre, or sub-sub-genre

read above. I am not a copyright expert and am pretty sure you guys arent either. I don't think it's so far fetched to think that if a company came up with a totally new genre sharing totally nothing with existing genres that they couldn't copyright their creation. Or perhaps find a loophole or push for change so that they could. That's not to say that people couldnt get around the copyrights later on. Indeed as I stated days ago, I don't think there is a great chance of a company copyrighting a genre coming to pass. I was merely stating, as I have many times on this thread now, that crazy practices can lead to crazier ones. I never went out an said "If EA gets exclusive rights to the NFL players Nintendo can buy a genre."



I assure you I can read! :) It's perfectly fine to doubt zmweasels literacy, I doubt it for a long time myself. ;) But PLEASE, state in public that I can read and gimme part of my puplic reputation back...PLEASE...

Seriously, I think you provoce a big quabble and quibble about a substantial nothing.

We all agree
1) genres cannot be legally acquired nor patented
2) EAs move, if successful, does indeed monopolize the 'realistic' football games with actual players/logos. If you want to call it a genre or sub-genre, they monopolize a genre and in effect buy one. The discussion about the label genre or soemething else is interesting, but not relevant.

The fuel for this discussion is your ambiguity. On the one hand you state that you always stated that genres can't be acquired, on the other hand you made provocative statements from thread one on about future consequences of EAs move. "Crazy practices can lead to crazier ones," or like above
"I don't think it's so far fetched to think that if a company came up with a totally new genre sharing totally nothing with existing genres that they couldn't copyright their creation. Or perhaps find a loophole or push for change so that they could."

Can you think of a scenario in which a new game genre can be patented? Can you even think of a totally new genre? I can't. I think it's far-fetched. Neither Goldeneye 007 nor Wolfenstein created a totally new genre. They were all well prepared by other games.

In other words, you think that EAs move might open the door two inches to acquire legal rights of a game genre, and that's nonsense, it never happened in all of the legal battles in videogame history about copyrights. That's painting the devil on the wall. (a German saying) EA is big, EA is successful, EA is one, maybe THE most reliable game developer today with high quality franchises and produces a lot of top-sellers; but this doesn't make EA evil and we shouldn't demonize them; however Eas move is troubling.

It's troubling because it eliminates competition, and competition breeds innovation. It would be bad if Sega couldn't use the NFL franchise anymore becasue EA doesn't have to improve their Madden bsed on other high-quality football games. If EA does what they did with the Nascar franchise, then they indeed eliminate the competition. EA is such a finacial powerhouse in the meantime that the tendency to monopolize a good portion of sports games merely based on acquiring franchises is troubling for gamers.

The real frightening "what's next Q" isn't finding loopholes for some fictitious new genres, but the possibility to acquire franchises like MLB, NHL, and others. EA is big as Time Warner-AOL in the meantime, they are big, maybe too big.

[Nature Boy]

Here's a question: the original post mentioned that the deal was supposed to be with the NFLPA. What about the NFL itself? Without their license you'd have a game with real player names but on fictious sports teams. Did the rumour even acknowledge that, or was it actually supposed to be to both the NFL and the NFLPA?

If that *did* happen (and I see no reason why it couldn't), I seriously wonder, with how many American Football games are sold, if somebody wouldn't get creative and stick around. There would still be the NCAA license. And there are other leagues like the CFL and the NFL Europe (or do they belong to the NFLPA? Probably). Probably not, but it'd be interesting to see what would be created if it were the case. There are definitely EA hater's out there, so you'd have *something* of a market anyway.

[RCM]

I had some witty remarks to answer all of my critics. I can't believe i just lost it all again. Yes again. I suppose the good lord is telling me something. FUCK! I will just agree to disagree. I made my points and posted my beliefs on all subjects brought up in this thread. It was fun. I suppose this subject would be best debated in person. Hopefully one day our paths will cross and we can discuss. This is my last post on this thread no matter what. Time to move on and play Rallysport Challenge 2! See ya

THE ONE, THE ONLY- RCM

[zmweasel]

For what it's worth, OPM editor-in-chief John Davison supports RCM's view of NASCAR-as-genre in his June 2004 review of Saturday Night Speedway:

"Like many game genres, racing is subdivided into little niches that cater to quite specific tastes."

So on that point, I submit.

-- Z.

[Ed Oscuro]

One point in particular interests me: the thought that you can "monopolize a genre." I think all hell would break loose if there was only one shooter game in town, so that's out of the question. With football, though, even if you have real football teams in only ONE football game there's nothing that says you can't have other games. You can have fantasy ball with classic players, you can have futuristic or robot football - this has been done before with baseball, you all know that!

I'd say that only letting one company have the rights to the game would be bad and awful, but that's from a standpoint of "$1B for intellectual property owners, $.02 for developers."

One thing's true: in real football there is a strong parallel: there's been only one game in town for many years now. Isn't this true? Baseball isn't any more diverse, as the classic National League and newer American Leage play together. Can we compare developers to various baseball or football teams playing under the same "league?"

Interesting questions all around.