Should CAG take a stand against SquareEnix?

How much market share does EA possess in the industry of publishing video game titles? I know they are the largest publishing company, but just because you own the most, doesn't mean you are a monopoly (i.e. owning 20% of the market and having 8 other competitors possessing 10% each). It's still possible for them to break some antitrust laws though.

As long as Nintendo and Microsoft are still around, I do not think that it will be a true monopoly. There are also still companies like Rare/Square Enix/Natsume/Konami etc. Some of those are strong competitors (and then some aren't, but if they are still publishing hit games, they are still taking a % of the market).

Personally, I think GameStop would have a better chance of becoming a true monopoly, but EB games, Best Buy, Walmart, Target and basically all major chains that sell games are still doing well (with the exception of K-mart), so that won't happen probably ever.

I mainly don't like EA for how they treat their employees. I don't like their business tactics (hostile takeovers), just like I don't like Walmarts' but at least I get lower prices at Walmart. It doesn't really bother me though, because I mainly play my GBA and I don't like sports games (I know they make more then that, like the Sims, but oh well).

If you really do not like EA games and still want to purchase a sports game but don't want to support the company, but it used at an indie game store (or small chain by you). There's also eBay.

List of some other publishers (not very large, mainly just for S&G) ---> http://members.shaw.ca/altmusic/publishers.html

EDIT: Personally, I think the discussion about "monopolizing" licenses is just plain stupid. That's intelluctual property :)roll:) . If you are going to moan about EA, at least use the argument of their treatment of employees or hostile takeovers. EA bought the rights to use the NHL "brand" not the entire sport of hockey.
 
The difference is that the NFL is based in various cities, the events are based by non scripted events, covered in local media, ran by various individuals instead of a creative part to forsee the events. It is a sports game and determined by the players, not by a presided series events. It's like having one brand of clothes with the exclusive license of NFL teams. I understand there are exclusive agreements with the leauge and Jerseys, but imagine only one company has the exlusive rights to NFL branded apperal, ie Haines (exagerated example). That means you cannot get a Champion made Seahawks sweatshirt or you have to pay for Haines socks if you want to wear socks with the Chief's logo.

What if you don't like Haines clothes at all. See my point?

[quote name='epobirs']
You also haven't answered the issue of media licenses (which the NFL is, anyone can do a football game without NFL logos) going exclusively to individual companies are very common. EA has Harry Potter locked up but nobody is whining about that. Nor is anyone demanding that Activision share the MArvel license with other publishers.[/quote]
 
I see your point, but it still doesn't make any sense. Your point exemplifies the issue of IP rights. Why should the NFL not be allowed to sell their copyrights to the groups, or group they choose ? They weren't forced to do it, they made a deal.

Why does it matter that the NFL is based in various cities ? That's not an argument, it's an observation. The NFL is based wherever it's copyrtights are being used, it's their property, no matter where it exists. Iguess if you don't like Hanes, then your feet get cold. Nowhere is it written you have a right to buy chiefs socks, or hanes for that matter.
 
The NFL made the decision since they own and operate the NFL, despite in the past that there were multiple NFL licensed games. All I am saying that I want to encourage a boycott of all NFL video games and the parent company who makes them until the exclusive license is ended and Electronic Arts would no longer being the exclusive lincensee of NFL branded video games. Maybe Electronic Arts would act as a sublicense to other video game publishers but that means each NFL video game is made, EA gets a chunk of it.

All I am asking is for a boycott in addition ot thier industry practices and history of hostile takeovers.

[quote name='bmulligan']I see your point, but it still doesn't make any sense. Why should the NFL not be allowed to sell their copyrights to the groups, or group they choose ? They weren't forced to do it, they made a deal.[/quote]
 
[quote name='Matarick']The difference is that the NFL is based in various cities, the events are based by non scripted events, covered in local media, ran by various individuals instead of a creative part to forsee the events. It is a sports game and determined by the players, not by a presided series events. It's like having one brand of clothes with the exclusive license of NFL teams. I understand there are exclusive agreements with the leauge and Jerseys, but imagine only one company has the exlusive rights to NFL branded apperal, ie Haines (exagerated example). That means you cannot get a Champion made Seahawks sweatshirt or you have to pay for Haines socks if you want to wear socks with the Chief's logo.

What if you don't like Haines clothes at all. See my point?

[quote name='epobirs']
You also haven't answered the issue of media licenses (which the NFL is, anyone can do a football game without NFL logos) going exclusively to individual companies are very common. EA has Harry Potter locked up but nobody is whining about that. Nor is anyone demanding that Activision share the MArvel license with other publishers.[/quote][/quote]

THe NFL having regional outlets has no bearing on it. Nor does the unscripted nature matter a bit. Numerous forms of entertainment are based on random events or individual talent. but that doesn't prevent Wizards of the Coast from selling exclusive licenses to develop computer and video games based on Magic: The Gathering or the aforemention Dungeons & Dragons. Nor has it prevented a myriad array of games that owe their existence to the ground broken by those properties from existing. There would be no highly lucrative Yu-Gi-Oh franchise for Konami if WotC owned the concept of card battle games. Nor would an uncountable range of adventure and RPG games exist if the D&D franchise was all-encompassing for that sort of gameplay. But WotC only owns their distinct iterations of those gaming concepts and can only sell or deny access to those.

So, no, I don't see your point. Media properties are just that: property. Which means the owner is free to exploit that property as they see fit. If you don't like Hanes t-shirts, tough. If that is the greatest misfortune life has shown you then consider yourself stunningly fortunate. If you don't like it do the work and get your own sports license. Make up an imaginary blernsball team and slap the logo on any brand of clothing you like. You could have your own logoed line of Victoria's Secret lingerie if you order enough to make it worth their while. That would be a better use of your time than pissing and whing because a property owner's choice don't coincide with yours.
 
[quote name='Matarick']The NFL made the decision since they own and operate the NFL, despite in the past that there were multiple NFL licensed games. All I am saying that I want to encourage a boycott of all NFL video games and the parent company who makes them until the exclusive license is ended and Electronic Arts would no longer being the exclusive lincensee of NFL branded video games. Maybe Electronic Arts would act as a sublicense to other video game publishers but that means each NFL video game is made, EA gets a chunk of it.

All I am asking is for a boycott in addition ot thier industry practices and history of hostile takeovers.

[quote name='bmulligan']I see your point, but it still doesn't make any sense. Why should the NFL not be allowed to sell their copyrights to the groups, or group they choose ? They weren't forced to do it, they made a deal.[/quote][/quote]

Fine, that's your right to your opinion. But you don't seem to understand the right to intellectual property. You don't own a share in the NFL, neither do the cities they play in, or the TV networks -- unless they buy that right.. If ESPN gets an exclusive contract to televise NFL games, are you going to boycott ESPN too ? Just becuase they bought exclusive rights?

I hate to tell you this but the popularity of our videogame consoles is primarily based on exclusivity. I guess we should boyucott MS, N and Sony too because they make exclusivity deals.
 
[quote name='epobirs']Nor is anyone demanding that Activision share the MArvel license with other publishers.[/quote]

Does Activision have an exclusive lock on the Marvel license? Isn't it EA that's making a Marvel vs. EA shitty fighting game? If comic licenses are being bought up, I'd demand that they be shared.

EDIT: I'd whine about the Potter license as well, but I have no reason to believe that any other company could make a good game based on Harry Potter, since I don't see that as a license that translates well into a game.
 
yeah, but I think activisions license is set to expire and Ea is taking up the slack, or there's some exception to the contract for specific licenses, I can't remember exactly. It's not like Activision's been blessed with the Midas touch when it comes to the Marvel product, though.
 
[quote name='Matarick']The NFL made the decision since they own and operate the NFL, despite in the past that there were multiple NFL licensed games. All I am saying that I want to encourage a boycott of all NFL video games and the parent company who makes them until the exclusive license is ended and Electronic Arts would no longer being the exclusive lincensee of NFL branded video games. Maybe Electronic Arts would act as a sublicense to other video game publishers but that means each NFL video game is made, EA gets a chunk of it.

All I am asking is for a boycott in addition ot thier industry practices and history of hostile takeovers.

[quote name='bmulligan']I see your point, but it still doesn't make any sense. Why should the NFL not be allowed to sell their copyrights to the groups, or group they choose ? They weren't forced to do it, they made a deal.[/quote][/quote]

You fail to note what unique circumstance are involved here. EA had to develop an overwhelming marketshare in football games before this became worth considering for the NFL. They made the deal with EA because they offered a ton of money and the NFL isn't losing anything in the process since all other licensees have been such poor royalty sources in recent years. Really major factor there.

Despite rumors, EA didn't make similar overture to the NBA, MLB, NHL, etc. because they couldn't offer a strong enough product to produce a better royalty income than a diverse array of licensed publishers. EA would never have gotten the NFL deal if all of the other licensees hadn't failed to produce royalties that were better than a small fraction of what Madden consistently generated. The Sega ESPN games only managed a surge in 2004 thanks to deep discounting but as a result came up badly low on the royalty front. That is the only part the NFL cares about.

This is common for media licenses. If EA had failed to produce bestsellers with their Harry Potter games they would long since have lost the license. Likewise for Activision and the Spider-man and X-men properties. Numerous companies have had poor results on those characters in the past but Activision is on a sustained winning streak and MArvel couldn't be happier letting them continue to be the sole source of games featuring those characters.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']yeah, but I think activisions license is set to expire and Ea is taking up the slack, or there's some exception to the contract for specific licenses, I can't remember exactly. It's not like Activision's been blessed with the Midas touch when it comes to the Marvel product, though.[/quote]

Unless you count all the bestselling Spider-man games and X-men Legends. They had some mediocre X-men games but most of them were profitable and Legends has scored big with a sequel on the way.Activision has generally made Marvel happy but Marvel's license isn't across the board for the whole Marvel Universe. That plays havoc with movie deals since so many studios are already inclined to favor certain game publishers. Notably Universal is inclined to favor Vivendi Uiversal for some baffling reason. Ergo, the Hulk game.

Activision has game rights on Fantastic Four and Iron Man as of mid 2001 but it isn't clear if they've maintained those licenses.
 
[quote name='alongx'][quote name='epobirs']Nor is anyone demanding that Activision share the MArvel license with other publishers.[/quote]

Does Activision have an exclusive lock on the Marvel license? Isn't it EA that's making a Marvel vs. EA shitty fighting game? If comic licenses are being bought up, I'd demand that they be shared.

EDIT: I'd whine about the Potter license as well, but I have no reason to believe that any other company could make a good game based on Harry Potter, since I don't see that as a license that translates well into a game.[/quote]

THe Harry Potter games may not be your cup of tea but except for the ill-considered Quiddich game the series has made a huge amount of sales and made the property owner very happy. JK Rowling would be a multi-miilionaire just from the games if all her other revenue suddenly vanished.
It says a lot that the first game was originally just on PSone and GBC but was later upgraded in versions for the GBA, PS2, and GameCube. THen over a year later it kept selling so well EA saw fit to release an Xbox version. How often does a franchise do ports of older releases like that? Not very, unless there is money to be made.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']Does no one else see the conspiracy?

National Football LEAgue

ChEAp Ass Gamer

It was right under our noses the whole time!!!![/quote]

We've been so blind.
 
[quote name='Death2Sanity'][quote name='dastly75']FF is an RPG. There's plenty of other companies that make RPGs out there. RPGs arent exclusive to SE.[/quote]

And sports games aren't exclusive to EA.

Coincidence?[/quote]

Uh-oh, I think someone has a point.
 
No one is saying that EA or the NFL shouldn't be allowed to have this deal.

What we're saying is, that as consumers, we really do not like this deal, and it will ultimately be bad for us. Ever hear of voting with your dollars? I don't like what they're doing, so they're not getting my money. Which is well within my rights to do.


So, to recap:

EA and NFL can do whatever they want.

I don't have to like it.

I can choose not to do business with those companies because I disagree with their actions.

What is the problem here? What is your problem with me choosing not to support these companies with my money?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top