Unanswered Questions About the UFC Undisputed 2009 Contract and Zuffa's Demands
by Luke Thomas on Nov 20, 2008 12:23 PM EST
in News
286 comments
The notion that Zuffa is the make or break opportunity for fighters and that management at Zuffa is allowed to say "our way or the highway" is technically correct. However, it is not at any interval an answer to the question of why the contract has to be signed.
Here is a list of questions that need to be answered if the public is to make an informed decision over which party is in the right:
1. Why is it necessary to have only the exclusive rights to fighters' likenesses?
2. Why is it absolutely non-negotiable that the rights extend for life? Why can there not be time limits?
3. If Fitch doesn't sign, why is it not enough that he simply be eliminated from the video game? Why is it necessary to remove him from the organization?
4. If White admits this is a personal dispute with Zinkin, why is Fitch being punished? Zinkin still makes money off Fitch (admittedly less, but still substantial) no matter where he goes.
Reminder: I'm asking for responses that indicate why matters are necessary, absolute and non-negotiable. That is a pretty high standard and threshold to meet. If you are making the case these matters are without any wiggle room, then the reasons underlying those motivations should clearly explain the urgency and inflexibility. In other words, to suggest that it's acceptable to cut Fitch from the UFC because of a manager-promoter dispute does not answer the question of necessity, only convenience. I want to know why there is no room to adjust the provisions.
1 recs |
286 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
These
are very important questions that need to be answered. Other than you Luke, who would ask Dana?
Sounds like a job for E:60’s ground-breaking journalism…………………
by JVelez on Nov 20, 2008 12:31 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
This should not be surprising from
a company that is notorious for airtight contracts they create & enforce. Their are tons of contracts like these in prof sports. Why are we not questioning the ones that state an athlete will not be paid if they are injured playing basketball or riding a motorcycle? It is business. If you do not like it or agree with the terms then do not sign the contract & take the consequences. The UFC has every right to terminated Fitch’s contract & why would they allow a fighter who is not doing what 95% of the other fighters are doing to remain with the company? Where does this work in any corner of business? Answer: nowhere.
by dnevil001 on Nov 20, 2008 12:35 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
This is not an answer of necessity
“The UFC has every right to terminated Fitch’s contract & why would they allow a fighter who is not doing what 95% of the other fighters are doing to remain with the company?”
by Luke Thomas on Nov 20, 2008 12:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So if you owned a company that had a new endeavor coming and all but 5% of your employees under contract were cooperating, what would be your alternatives? Why would any company negotiate with 5% of their employees? The necessity of this is the same conclusion that MLB, NFL & the NBA came to: in a market where the employer holds this much power you must have the majority of the employees represented on a single front.
by dnevil001 on Nov 20, 2008 12:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The NBA, NFL, NHL …..GASP pay for the rights and likenesses of the athletes and don’t get them for a period of eternity.
Get that through your peanut brain.
by Frank_Castle on Nov 20, 2008 2:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
When one side uses arguments, and the other side insults, I know where to go.
by subo on Nov 20, 2008 2:23 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Rec'd
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 2:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Amazing....
Why don’t you contribute a “+1” while you’re at it?
by Frank_Castle on Nov 20, 2008 2:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Dude, chill. It’s not you that’s been cut from the UFC. Keep it civil – Luke is quick with his banning gun.
Don't believe a word I say, I don't train BJJ. -- TangleBones
by jemaleddin on Nov 20, 2008 2:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I thought Fitch had big balls, Jemaleddin is standing in the Punisher’s way while telling him to be polite.
by Day Man on Nov 20, 2008 2:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Dude, I have to buy specialty pants. Seriously.
Don't believe a word I say, I don't train BJJ. -- TangleBones
by jemaleddin on Nov 20, 2008 2:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ban me for what?
Calling on a poster who’s cluttered up different threads with “Rec’d” or another who’s clogged more up saying “this is what the NFL, NHL, NBA, ‘do’…” – when they don’t and it’s completely incorrect or with “Agreed 100%, see above”
Post on Sherdog if that’s the level of insight you want to add…not the same [incorrect] post in a dozen threads and then repeated within that thread as if it’s a fact.
by Frank_Castle on Nov 20, 2008 2:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ban me for what?
“Get that through your peanut brain.”
Clear?
Don't believe a word I say, I don't train BJJ. -- TangleBones
by jemaleddin on Nov 20, 2008 2:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
(Besides which, if that’s how you take well-intentioned and helpful advice, it’s hard for me to believe you when you suggest that you’re out here seeking a higher standard of discourse.)
Don't believe a word I say, I don't train BJJ. -- TangleBones
by jemaleddin on Nov 20, 2008 3:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
When one side uses completely unintelligent and uninformed arguments and other people back that up…I know the intelligence level of the individuals I’m dealing with.
by Frank_Castle on Nov 20, 2008 2:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Could the UFC simply have removed Fitch from the game?
Possibly, but think about what that means for the future of these endeavors. As a company, they want to send the same message that every single other company in the world does: we want you all to be company men. It is not always pretty or respectful, but it is the way of the world & especially in business.
by dnevil001 on Nov 20, 2008 12:37 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
This argument simplifies the issue and removes it from context, though. You’re forgetting that you have an organization that claims to be the premier destination for elite athletes in a sport giving one of the top performers a boot over a relatively unimportant and irrelevant contract point. Yes, they have every right to release Jon Fitch and I think almost everyone criticizing this move has agreed to that. But it runs completely opposite to one of their driving marketing points, and does so without much benefit to the company (as far as I can tell).
by Mike Fagan on Nov 20, 2008 12:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This is a very simple issue:
if you do not agree then do not sign & accept what the company does. Your options are to find another company or a union that addresses these issues on behalf of all the fighters.
by dnevil001 on Nov 20, 2008 12:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know if I'm understanding the argument you're making
Up until now it seemed like you were simply saying that “Its fucked up, but oh well, what’re ya gonna do? This is the way things are and you have to tow the company line in these risky times even when they do greedy and more importantly unnecessary things.”
What I’m hearing is that your argument for the necessity of taking a man’s only chance for a healthy livelihood as the second best practitioner of his chosen craft in the world is because a company should make unexplained demand simply because the have tyrannically unaccountable power in said craft? They should because they can? I am trying to understand whether or not you think it’s objectionable for a company to do something unnecessary and harmful simply because they have the power to do so?
by asa on Nov 20, 2008 8:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think we're witnessing the birth of the new age of MMA, Luke
Dana’s not going to do or give anything he doesn’t have to at this point – not after November 15th. I do think the lifetime exclusive video game rights are non-negotiable, because the very fact that it’s being discussed means the fighter is entertaining the notion of fighting somewhere else someday. Barry Bonds and Michael Jordan are the exceptions that prove the rule – don’t screw with the league that employs you when it comes to marketing rights.
That’s not what the UFC is looking for right now. I think Dana’s refined his search down to the top 15-20 of every weight class – and that means every one of those guys needs to have being the best fighter in the world as their sole and total motivation. Anyone who takes that seriously desires being in the UFC above all else – money, video game rights, the color of M&M’s in the locker room – because that’s where the best fighters in the world fight.
By making this the sticking point of negotiations, AKA – and Fitch by allowing them to do so – declared them more important than their desire to see their fighters reach the pinnacles of the MMA world.
Dana may be secretly only interested in fighters that bow to his every whim, but those fighters do so precisely because they are more interested in being the best fighter than the best businessman. That’s the kind of guys Dana wants in the UFC, and frankly, they’re the guys I want to see fight.
by subo on Nov 20, 2008 12:41 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Good point
& we see that those fighters are more than well compensated for doing so. Even Fitch made 6 figures for his last fight, not to mention the insane sponsor money they get as a result of the notoriety the receive from being in the UFC.
by dnevil001 on Nov 20, 2008 12:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
By making this the sticking point of negotiations, AKA – and Fitch by allowing them to do so – declared them more important than their desire to see their fighters reach the pinnacles of the MMA world.
It doesn’t look like there was any negotiation here. As soon as they didn’t sign what was put in front of them they were cut loose.
by thepenismightier on Nov 20, 2008 12:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The negotiation is when they hand you a piece of paper with a place for your name. The negotiation is whether or not you sign it. The sticking point was the video game rights.
This is why a fighter’s union would be awesome – but in all honesty, a fighter’s union wouldn’t allow members to opt out of official company games, or into competing ones. This whole move by Fitch is just ducking fumb.
by subo on Nov 20, 2008 12:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The video game
issues seem to be addressed very well in the NFL, MLB & NBA though
by dnevil001 on Nov 20, 2008 12:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Except players get a share of the proceeds.
by Luke Thomas on Nov 20, 2008 12:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
EXACTLY!
Because it was addressed when they signed their initial contracts.
by dnevil001 on Nov 20, 2008 1:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Because they have union. I get your argument and I think it has a lot of validity, but a company cannot sew the seeds of discontent and then cry when they bear fruit.
by Luke Thomas on Nov 20, 2008 1:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with your point, but
this always happens in new sports until a union is formed or your name is big enough where you are able to do this on your own.
by dnevil001 on Nov 20, 2008 1:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Is the company crying, though?
I could see how it’s perceived that Dana is crying about it. But it looks more to me like he’s just using his leverage to eliminate elements of opposition he finds intolerable.
If the fighters distance themselves from Zinkin/AKA, then he’ll welcome them back with open arms. And a brand new pen with which to sign.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 1:04 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Yeah, Dana crying as the face of the UFC means the company. No dispute with you there.
by Luke Thomas on Nov 20, 2008 1:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
My meaning was misinterpreted. I was suggesting that Dana/Company (one entity in most of my posts, I just happened to make a somewhat confusion separation above) aren’t crying at all. They’re bellowing a battle-cry at the top of their lungs.
Complaining about the economy while bolstering how good you’ve been to your employees isn’t crying. Complaining about the economy and asking your employees to take a pay-cut or other economic concession would absolutely be crying. This is simply intimidation, which is fully within their rights to attempt, at least until a court rules otherwise.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 1:20 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Incorrect
It is not addressed in their original contracts. It is negotiated by the players union. No individual player could stand up to the NFL and win. It is a union issue. No fighters union, no share of profits. simple.
by Nick Travaglini on Nov 20, 2008 1:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The players union is
part of the players actual contract, therefore it is addressed.
by dnevil001 on Nov 20, 2008 1:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That is not incorrect-
each player coming into these leagues chooses to join the union or not & these clauses are in each contract because of that membership.
by dnevil001 on Nov 20, 2008 1:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And the union negotiates the terms of deals like these and many other deals every time they agree to their collective bargaining agreement.
Maybe get an understanding of how things work before you spew out your syncophantic diatribes that are based on nothing but your meager uninformed knowledge.
by Frank_Castle on Nov 20, 2008 2:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So now it’s being addressed by both sides. And one side wants to pay….NOTHING for it. Gee, what a negotiation.
by Frank_Castle on Nov 20, 2008 2:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Isn't that largely because
the players’ unions in those sports are orders of magnitude more powerful than the independent contractors the UFC negotiates with? Position creates leverage, and the fighters just don’t have the position to ‘negotiate’ these points right now.
If this whole thing is a cry for unionization, I’m ok with that. But we can’t compare the two like they’re both fruit, because they really aren’t.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 1:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Sure, fighters and their agents or management don’t have the power of a union. Not even close. I’m fine with that. But the subsequent calls for the fighters to simply accept wholesale what is being thrown at them doesn’t address the core issue – are these demands good for the fighters? In some ways, sure. In many others, no. The picture is AT BEST unclear in terms of how these demands benefit fighters.
There is also the issue of precedent. The UFC wants fighters to sign everything without questions being asked. What will they ask next? How far will they go?
by Luke Thomas on Nov 20, 2008 1:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Great points,
I just think that the fighters are going to have to go the same route & follow the same models laid before them by NFL, MLB & NBA players to reach these goals. Just like any big company, the UFC is going to try all that they can to get every penny until something forces them to change. And that is not necessarily bad, it is business or smart business anyway.
by dnevil001 on Nov 20, 2008 1:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm with you on questioning the ethics or morality of
UFC’s behavior in these matters. I just don’t see where the leverage comes from to change them. Others have suggested government intervention, I even supported a poster from the first Fitch post who thought these guys should sue the UFC in court. But outside of those avenues, I don’t see how these agents can fight the UFC on these issues.
Is it unfair? Sure it is. But I’m a nurse, and in the event of a local catastrophe, I don’t get to leave the hospital until the administrator tells me I can. That can last for weeks, or even months (just ask the New Orleans hospital staffers who actually showed up for work those days). Is that fair? Of course I don’t think it’s fair, but what’s my recourse? I can quit, which would stop supporting them with my labor and presence. I can sue them for unfair business practices. I can ask the government to step in. Is there anything else I can actually do though?
I guess I’m just a pragmatist at heart. I don’t like the idea of fighting if there’s no payoff. I’m ok being Leonidas, but I want to be fairly sure it will at least mean something in the end.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 1:16 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
And those leagues and unions have been around for decades though, This is still a new sport. I don’t see much difference in this in that, fighters are going to have to make sacrifices at this point. They have no bargaining chip. In 10-15 years, maybe they will, but now they do not. No where else can they fight the top fighters and get paid well for it. Right now, I think if there was a fighter’s union that was pushing for a lot more of everything, it could very well drive the UFC out of business. The fighter’s have to suck it up until this thing is full-bore a major sport.
by RollinOnShabbos on Nov 20, 2008 1:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Don't just assume that this was Fitch being treated unfairly...
By making this the sticking point of negotiations, AKA – and Fitch by allowing them to do so – declared them more important than their desire to see their fighters reach the pinnacles of the MMA world.
I think you’re on the right track. Look, I’m minutely involved in what is going on here (and I mean minute- as in having nothing to do whatsoever with negotiations or decisions, but merely in the know). Bob Cook at AKA is looking to get most, if not all, of his guys out of the UFC. There is a new organization about to premeire (don’t want to spoil it, but it’s not the World Cagefighting Alliance) and let’s just say that Cook has a relationship with the owners (who have a very strong financial backing). His fighters will be treated much better and his camp will get more press. Will it all work out for them in the end? I don’t know, but believe me, this is something that fitch and the other fighters want as well.
by flassasin24 on Nov 20, 2008 1:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Hmm…then why would Koscheck just sign a new deal with the UFC a few months ago and Mike Swick agree to sign the agreement in question?
http://mma4real.net/
by Tha Realness on Nov 20, 2008 1:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Koscheck signed that deal right before this league was first proposed. I don’t want to speak for any of those fighters (especially because I haven’t spoken to any of them personally), but any of them still have an out by following Fitch.
by flassasin24 on Nov 20, 2008 2:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So why are they back talking with the UFC right now as we type? If what you are saying is true…he got what he wanted with them being out of the UFC…or on the way out.
http://mma4real.net/
by Tha Realness on Nov 20, 2008 3:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If that is their motivation, then they all deserve what they are going to get. The UFC is here to stay. If indeed MMA becomes a monster global sport, it will be the UFC that takes it there. They’ve created too much of a brand at this point.
The grass isn’t always greener on the other side.
by RollinOnShabbos on Nov 20, 2008 1:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Quick, lets consult War Machine
Subject: UFC=Nazi fucks!
Body: UFC cut john Fitch!???
Are you fucking serious? The guy has the record for most wins in a row…8….he loses ONE fight….a championship fight…..to fucking Georges St. Pierre…a DECISION. The only fuckin dude to go 5 rounds with St.
Pierre and they cut him!
Why????
Because those Nazi fucks want to use his likeness for video games and action figures but wanna keep all the money from selling it!
HAHA!
WTF? Shit is not fair….they OWN your ass and the SECOND you stick up for yourself at all they ditch you.
Sucks..
WM
by EnsignFrog on Nov 20, 2008 12:41 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I disagree with War Machine. I always sleep a little better knowing that.
by subo on Nov 20, 2008 12:46 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Yea, I might have to rethink my stance knowing who I’m on the same page with.
by Day Man on Nov 20, 2008 12:55 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
That’s my motto: WWWMD? “What Wouldn’t War Machine Do?”
Don't believe a word I say, I don't train BJJ. -- TangleBones
by jemaleddin on Nov 20, 2008 3:27 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Is that how you stay conscious at the end of your fights?
by Day Man on Nov 20, 2008 3:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Indeed! It’s also how I avoid getting fired, arrested and getting asinine tattoos!
Friends don’t let friends pick out their own nickname.
Don't believe a word I say, I don't train BJJ. -- TangleBones
by jemaleddin on Nov 20, 2008 4:01 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I bet it is also how you didn’t change your legal name too!
by iiowyn on Nov 20, 2008 4:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
(Though that might not be a bad idea… Jemaleddin? For a pasty white guy? Who thought that was a good idea?)
Don't believe a word I say, I don't train BJJ. -- TangleBones
by jemaleddin on Nov 20, 2008 4:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And subsequently get it tattoed on their body…and then subsequently get their name legally changed into said nickname
by Day Man on Nov 20, 2008 4:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
By the way
This is who I think of whenever somebody brings up War Machine:
Seriously: a good friend would have stopped that.
Don't believe a word I say, I don't train BJJ. -- TangleBones
by jemaleddin on Nov 20, 2008 4:08 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
No, a good friend would talk you into doing that.
by Richard Wade on Nov 20, 2008 4:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That’s you, isn’t it?
And if not: WE CANNOT BE FRIENDS.
Don't believe a word I say, I don't train BJJ. -- TangleBones
by jemaleddin on Nov 20, 2008 4:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Guess we’re not friends. I can’t get a flu shot let alone a tattoo.
by Richard Wade on Nov 20, 2008 4:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I meant, the “you talked a friend into a tattoo like that,” thing, but this is fine too. We still get to have the hot four-somes with the pygmy and the water buffalo, right?
Don't believe a word I say, I don't train BJJ. -- TangleBones
by jemaleddin on Nov 20, 2008 4:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Not if you’re going to go around telling people about it.
by Richard Wade on Nov 20, 2008 5:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Funny thing, there is a miniature game called War Machine at the game store I hang out at (yes yes, I am a nerd). Some friend and I were making fun of it and ended up pronouncing it “wah-mah-cheen”. I found War Machine the fighter to be much more enjoyable when I started pronouncing his name that way.
by iiowyn on Nov 20, 2008 4:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
“If Fitch doesn’t sign, why is it not enough that he simply be eliminated from the video game? Why is it necessary to remove him from the organization?”
Thats what I want to know. Something isnt right here…
by xFenixKnightx on Nov 20, 2008 12:47 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
It doesn’t make any sense to remove a fighter from the game and still let them fight. UFC is counting on this game being huge and they need all hands on deck. Barry Bonds and Jordan were different because they weren’t in the players union and because they were Barry Bonds and Michael Jordan. What does the WWE do with their games? They have made it clear they are following WWE as a model, so can anyone name a mid-level wrestler that didn’t want to be in their games and still have a job? I don’t know, but I’m thinking that number has to be very low.
by RollinOnShabbos on Nov 20, 2008 12:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So lets hurt our own promotion instead?
“It doesn’t make any sense to remove a fighter from the game and still let them fight. UFC is counting on this game being huge and they need all hands on deck.”
It’s just a game. They could always make a secret character titled “Unknown Fighter etc”. You are hurting your own promotion for a once in 4 years, $80 product. That doesn’t make sense.
WWE wrestlers got paid for their likeness. A hefty percentage of their total money made comes from sales of their own image.
by achengy on Nov 20, 2008 1:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Without the rights to Fitch’s likeness the UFC would never air another one of his fights. It makes absolutely no business sense to advertise a guy without being able to profit off of his image. Fitch has reached borderline headliner status in the UFC, and is a top 3 or 4 contender at welterweight, do you really think the UFC wants a potential champion on their roster without being able to have him in their video game or action figure line up? Therefore the UFC was forced to cut him. Trust me Fitch needs the UFC a lot more than they need him.
by Propst01 on Nov 20, 2008 1:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The video game likeness rights have nothing to do with bout promotion.
by Luke Thomas on Nov 20, 2008 1:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ok lets say a new UFC fan watches the next ppv with John Fitch or even watches one of his previous fights and becomes a fan of Fitch’s. That fan will then want to go buy the new UFC video game or get the Fitch action figure but what do you know Fitch isn’t on it. Not only does this hurt the UFC and their goal of expanding the fan base it hurts their total revenue. While Fitch is a top talent he has not yet reached elite status in the UFC and is therefore expendable. They do not want to waste the time to promote Fitch on their PPV shows or fight nights without being able to promote him on their video game or any other merchandise that fans buy. While the revenue generated by the ppv’s is great it by no means outweights the revenue from merchandise sales. So unfortunately in the grand scheme of things the video game likeness rights have everything to do with bout promotion.
by Propst01 on Nov 20, 2008 1:46 PM EST up reply actions 4 recs
Well articulated.
I don’t know if I agree with you, but Rec’d just the same.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 1:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So why not a 10-year deal?
Not a lifetime frickin contract.
Once Fitch is gone from the promotion, his likeness is no longer of use to the UFC so why should they get to hold that right?
It should be within the fighter’s right to hold that ability wherever he goes.
I’ll disagree that Fitch is expendable. What if Alves beats the winner of Penn/GSP? Last I checked, Fitch holds a pretty convincing win over him. Top ranked fighters don’t grow on trees.
by achengy on Nov 20, 2008 2:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree he should be able to negotiate a timeline. I think the UFC is just trying to eliminate the possibility of any competitor recruiting their talent pool. Unfortunately with the current landscape of MMA Promotions (or lack thereof), the UFC has all the leverage. So even a top talent such as Fitch does not have much negotiating power and in the eyes of the UFC is expendable. You are correct top ranked fighters are hard to find but the UFC has a pretty large stable of top talent fighters, which makes a few of them expendable. Trust me I’m a Fitch fan and would love to see him fight Alves along with a handful of other guys. Hopefully they can come to some sort of resolution.
by Propst01 on Nov 20, 2008 2:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
answer to #4
(i cannot come up with a logical reason as for 1-3, but i think from dana’s perspective, you could easily argue #4. all that said, the UFC is in the wrong here)
I work as a lumber wholesaler. i am the middle man between sawmills (raw lumber goods), and cabinet/flooring manufacturers (end product). i can understand the role of an agent pretty decently. the agent is the UFC’s contact in all transactions between the company and the fighter. fighters fight, they arent businessmen sticking their necks out for the best deal. so figthers employ these agents to protect them from being mistreated by the UFC. when Zinkin bucked against the UFC brass, and was unwilling to meet the mandatory terms that were absolute as far as the UFC was concerned, they terminated their dealings with Zinkin in regards to Jon Fitch’s contract. you cannot separate the two when dealing with a middle man. the middle man (agent) represents the fighter. Fitch had to be let go when Zinkin and the UFC could no longer meet on those mandatory issues.
(that being said, i’ve always been a UFC/dana white nuthugger…. and it ended yesterday. fitch is in the right. this is all a load of crap. those mandatory issues are ridiculous.)
by MicahW on Nov 20, 2008 12:48 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
As you said, you cannot separate the two (agent and fighter) when dealing with the middle man. If Dana doesn’t want to do business with Zinkin, potentially every fighter Zinkin would represent is at risk. So the solution? Drop Zinkin. Get a new agent.
I know most fighters don’t want to be business men, and only want to fight. But I think this situation just revealed that fighters will have to get educated on business, and they’ll have to do it fast, because they cannot rely on the agent to do everything for them. It’s like banking. You rely on your financial planner to give suggestions and advice, but at the end of the day, you need to educate yourself enough so that you can make your own informed decisions. If you blindly follow what your financial planner says, the potential is there to get hosed.
by pud333 on Nov 20, 2008 12:58 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Great point!
This same thing happens to both MLB & NFL players who have Scott Boras or Drew Rosen as their agents. Their are quite a few clubs who simply will not deal with any client of these guys
by dnevil001 on Nov 20, 2008 1:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Rec'd
for clarity, and the fact that I used to sell lumber from our sawmill. I went direct as often as possible, lol.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 12:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
there are benefits to using a wholesaler. you lose a percentage of the overall sale, but you also get the repeat business a wholesaler is able to shore up. i’m able to spend alot more time shopping for sales than a sawmill is.
by MicahW on Nov 20, 2008 1:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
We moved like 150k board feet per day, so that was like eight trucks that I had to figure out how to ship. I had plenty of time to make multi-stops from Portland, OR to San Diego, and I did. No offense to you whatsoever, but wholesalers were notorious for dropping me without so much as a whiff of notice.
After the third time it happened, I pretty much just said ‘screw it’ and started sending 2-4 unit shipments down the coast at retail prices. Wasn’t as hard as I thought initially, so I just kept doing it. I had a fax program that was sent out to like 1200 customers every week, and sold something like 3-4 loads per week off that thing. Man, I miss that.
/off topic rant
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 1:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
no offense taken. there’s rotten wholesalers, rotten suppliers, rotten customers everywhere. just wish i could know who the MMA fans are in the industry. that’d make things more fun if every phone call included “did you hear about jon fitch…”
by MicahW on Nov 20, 2008 1:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No doubts there. My most fun phone calls were with a wholesaler from Canada, who I don’t think I ever did any business with. I would just call him and rip on Canadians, and he’d call me back and rip on Americans, then we’d reverse and I’d rip on Americans and he’d rip on Canadians. Was really relaxing. Would have been better if we could have debated GSP vs. Jon Fitch, lol.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 1:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The answer to all of this is that the UFC, as the boss of these fighters, needs to set a precedent to others. “Do not fuck with management.” This happens in every type of workplace across management and it’s a general consensus that no worker likes it. The problem arises when the inner workings of your company are very public and the very business you profit from is based on the support of fans who are very aware of the inner workings.
by dropkick101 on Nov 20, 2008 12:53 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
No one on this site can answer #1 and #2.
#3. Zuffa told THQ that all the fighters on the roster would be available(although they couldn’t gurantee it and didn’t tell THQ that because all the fighters hadn’t signed the agreement). Therefore, if Fitch didn’t sign the agreement he has to be cut to not be on the roster that Zuffa told THQ they would have access too in terms of who was in the game.
#4. See MicahW’s response.
http://mma4real.net/
by Tha Realness on Nov 20, 2008 12:54 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
If your scenario for #3 is correct, then Zuffa is allowing an outside entity to significantly affect its core business. That doesn’t sound like a good agreement with THQ.
by Cannon Jacques on Nov 20, 2008 1:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Over an ancillary product that may or may not make them any money at all.
by Day Man on Nov 20, 2008 1:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The game is licensed, I believe. Meaning that the UFC gets paid and the manufacturer (THQ) takes the risk.
by bigweeze on Nov 20, 2008 1:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Nobody can answer questions #1 and #2 for sure, but I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to argue that Zuffa adopts those policies because it’s more profitable to them that way.
by Andy R on Nov 20, 2008 3:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
#1 Is the one that bugs me
I see the UFC’s stance on everything except the fact that it’s a lifetime exclusive deal.
If it wasn’t exclusive, I don’t see why anyone would sign it, why would Jon Fitch being a character in a game 20 years ago be bad for anyone, including Jon Fitch.
I really don’t see the need for a lifetime and an exclusive deal for video games. But it seems like here that isn’t the real issue with Fitch, it seems like the straw that broke the camel’s back with Fitch’s agent, which sucks.
by Phildo on Nov 20, 2008 1:17 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
20 years ago should be 20 years from now.
by Phildo on Nov 20, 2008 1:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Because the income streams that come from fighting last 5-10 years. The income streams that come from a fighters likeness last the rest of their lives. Protecting those income streams seems pretty important to me.
by Day Man on Nov 20, 2008 1:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Isn’t the only thing that is lifetime and exclusive the video game thing?
How does Fitch being in a UFC game in 20 years cost him money? No matter what he is doing with his life then, retired, fighting for someone else, how can that hurt?
by Phildo on Nov 20, 2008 1:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well he makes nothing from the UFC video game and is prevented from using profiting from his likeness in any other game. That’s pretty much the issue.
Another fun scenario involving the clothing line:
Fitch goes to Affliction or Dream or some other org after his contract with the UFC ends. He gets huge, and rattles off 10 wins in a row. You really think Dana is above putting out a GSP shirt with pictures of Fitch’s face beat to hell after his fight with GSP to degrade Fitch and the rival promotions product?
by Day Man on Nov 20, 2008 1:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This is about the video game contract, not the marketing deal.
by bigweeze on Nov 20, 2008 1:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I was addressing the above points for both the video game and marketing rights. I understand what the disagreement is about.
by Day Man on Nov 20, 2008 1:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
A Few Things Here To Point Out
1) The UFC has made it pretty clear with their Merchandising Agreement that the UFC wants to ow your name, meaning that if the UFC cuts you tomorrow, they can continue to make money off of you and PREVENT you from making money yourself. That was the original deal that all agents were against. If the UFC offered me this deal before, I would be very very cautious to sign a new one. I believe this is NOT JUST A VIDEO game likeness contract, but a likeness contract for all merchandising, which inclues action figures, video games, clothing line etc.
2) The UFC made it clear that they were giving “Certain” fighters the privilige to modify the contract. That means that Chuck could have signed it, but, he have had that stipulation removed from the contract. UFC would only let their cash cows have the privilige to these negotiations.
Because of their track record, the comments that I hear, and what has transpired, I don’t see how anyone can side on behalf of Dana and the UFC.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Nov 20, 2008 1:20 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
It is a likeness contract for all merch, but only the video game is exclusive – Jon Fitch can make Jon Fitch t-shirts, dolls, grills and lady’s razors, but so can Zuffa. The only thing Fitch can’t do is appear in someone else’s game.
I side with the UFC here.
by subo on Nov 20, 2008 1:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Dana said, what is Jon Fitch planning on doing, starting his clothing line?
Meaning that it extends beyond a video game.
That was the deal before, and knowing Zuffa, I imagine it is the same again.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Nov 20, 2008 1:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Think about it?
Why would it ONLY be exclusive for a video game?
by MMASuPreMaCy on Nov 20, 2008 1:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Who knows, but that’s what everyone but you has been saying from the beginning.
by Phildo on Nov 20, 2008 1:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I studied up on their first merchandising deal back in the earlier part of the year, so I know what they put in their contracts. I don’t expect it to change, and I have been saying that for a while now.
Banning fighter sponsors and providing one sided contracts is a nice way to piss off all of your employers.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Nov 20, 2008 1:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not certain that’s the case. My understanding of the reading is that fighters are allowed to produce and sell their own merchandise but Zuffa has to approve it.
by Luke Thomas on Nov 20, 2008 1:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
But I’m not certain. I’ll double check.
by Luke Thomas on Nov 20, 2008 1:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
EXACTLY!
Which means no!
They won’t be able to unless ZUFFA gets a cut or they negotiate something.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Nov 20, 2008 1:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This was done to scare fighters away, like going to Affliction, and then being able to use their name and fame they developed in the UFC to compete against them. Basically, the UFC wants you to pretty much be dead or done with MMA after you leave or are cut by the UFC.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Nov 20, 2008 1:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It’s a privilege to fight in the UFC, not the other way around. If a fighter doesn’t like everything that comes along with being a UFC employee, then they can quit. For every fighter that doesn’t like his contract and quits, there are 50 guys that would step in in a second.
Where is Jon Fitch going to make more money: winning fights at a UFC salary making the most sponsorship money because of the UFC exposure OR fighting somewhere else and making his own merchandise?
My guess is in the UFC and that is why they hold the hammer.
by RollinOnShabbos on Nov 20, 2008 1:29 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Which is why fighters should have options.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Nov 20, 2008 1:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Which is why Dana got pissed and said, fine go with with those [%$^&&].
He got pissed that fighters can use other orgs as leverage.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Nov 20, 2008 1:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No no no no, he wasn’t pissed about them having options.
He was publicly defecating on their other options and laughing at them for even presenting them as the basis for negotiating leverage.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 1:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly, good business when you own the market
by dnevil001 on Nov 20, 2008 1:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Which is why fans are gainst a monopoly.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Nov 20, 2008 1:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
As a fan, I want to see the best fights. The best fights are currently in the UFC. More than one promotion doesn’t allow that. Most of the best fights to the casual fan, the most important fan, do not include Jon Fitch. As a hardcore guy, I like Fitch, I like watching him fight, but he is not exciting. Fitch didn’t really have much to say at the table. Fitch may be a top-10 welterweight, but he is hardly a draw in the UFC. Would this have went the same had it been one of the stars? Highly doubt it. Fitch screwed up.
by RollinOnShabbos on Nov 20, 2008 1:45 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I agree with the concept of
being against a monopoly. My point was only that you cannot blame any company for doing this while they can. Now is the time where they make the most profit, so of course they are going to do everything in their power to capitalize on that.
by dnevil001 on Nov 20, 2008 2:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
But until a viable alternative is presented, we get the ‘monopoly.’ That’s the market.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 1:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think anyone is arguing that Zuffa doesn’t have the power to do this or that it isn’t happening. They are arguing that its screwing with the final product that Zuffa puts out which is bad for us as fans.
by Day Man on Nov 20, 2008 1:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I feel like I’m turning into mythbuster over here ;)
My point isn’t to obfuscate any of what you point out. My point is, what are our alternatives? What are the fighters’ alternatives? Rather than bitching about it, why don’t we try to come up with actions and activities which can change this course, if we deem it to be so undesirable?
I can’t see the pathway to change at this point in time, but this board is a great place to start. We just need to move on from rending our garments over the whole affair.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 1:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’d rather just bitch. No matter how I slice it, I’m not gonna boycott a product I love over this. Dana has us all over the barrel and there isn’t much we can do about it. Much like the AKA situation.
by Day Man on Nov 20, 2008 1:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It's all a privilege for the UFC
The UFC has the privilege of being the only game in town and they are ruining that privilege.
You can’t discount what the fighters have done and for them to be abused is just short sighted.
I think the fighters understand the business of it and cruelty that is UFC management.
However the main argument, is that we as fans are saying THIS IS WRONG.
by achengy on Nov 20, 2008 2:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The answer to #1 and #2 is:
So EA sports can’t create a video game with UFC fighters….
That will be in direct conflict with THQ supporting the UFC.
And the overlying answer to your question/theme is this is the policy now… you know when you get an updated terms and policies from your credit card company.
If you don’t like it you cancel… fitch didnt like it so he was canceled. simple as that not very complicated.
This is a business not a fucking government that is bound by the geneva conventions.
by mmalogic on Nov 20, 2008 1:29 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Yet it was the incompetence of Dana and Zuffa that started this mess by promising THQ something they didn’t have yet, but that should come as no surprise to Danas promises and big announcements.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Nov 20, 2008 1:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You really call this
incompetence or extremely smart, lucrative business mgmt?
by dnevil001 on Nov 20, 2008 1:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Promising a compony something you don’t have is incompetence.
Now he is taking it out on AKA and Fitch for his F’ups.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Nov 20, 2008 1:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What?
Have you ever been in negotiations in business? You almost never have what you are promising. You are speculating on your ability to acquire it. This is pretty basic.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 1:35 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Ofcourse, never said otherwise.
Still doesn’t wipe out the F’ed Up position that Zuffa is putting themselves into now.
Now they have a PR problem and disgruntled workers.
Never a good thing.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Nov 20, 2008 1:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
disgruntled workers is just an indication that you’re pushing hard enough to make some squeaks. Testing the limits, so you can know what/where they are is always a good thing.
As for a PR problem, this thing is unlikely to gain traction. I mean, this board (not the authors, but the body of posters), which is usually pretty critical of the UFC and their dealings is splitting pretty close to 50/50 on the subject. It’s not going to be a winning fight.
If Couture couldn’t beat the UFC in a PR flamewar, there’s no way AKA can do it.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 1:39 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I would love to be your boss.
You would take anything I would give you because it is good business to underpay you and overwork you. AWESOME!
by MMASuPreMaCy on Nov 20, 2008 1:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Dude, I am the boss.
But before I was, I would quit jobs if I found them inequitable or unfavorable to me personally or professionally. But I understand a simple fact: when you’re being paid, it’s always going to include something(s) that you find undesirable. That’s just life. You have to weight the whole thing out and decide whether or not the exchange is worth it to you, personally. If it is, STFU and deal. If it’s not, then quit/strike/whatever.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 1:46 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
This explains a lot.
Spoken like a true employer.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Nov 20, 2008 1:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I know, I know.
I’m suddenly not human because I run a small business.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 1:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Management is the enemy of the working class – it’s why you can’t join unions.
(By which I mean we. Oh well.)
Don't believe a word I say, I don't train BJJ. -- TangleBones
by jemaleddin on Nov 20, 2008 3:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
[best Mr. Mackey impersonation]: Management’s bad, mkay? Corporations are bad, mkay? Unions are good, mkay? So if you join a union, just make sure it’s not associated with management or a corporation, mkay?
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 3:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This isn’t quite true. Employers cannot do whatever they like. There are basic laws and practices that must be upheld at all times. And not all contracts are enforceable just because both parties sign them. A U.S. Court can strike down any agreement if the terms are deemed too onerous.
by Luke Thomas on Nov 20, 2008 1:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yup, but a boss would probably not want to acknowledge that.
Outsourcing, anyone?
:)
by MMASuPreMaCy on Nov 20, 2008 1:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Outsourcing = the result of excessive regulation and taxes
by Richard Wade on Nov 20, 2008 2:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I wasn’t going to go there, but I’ve got your back now that you have.
Outsourcing is not automatically a bad thing, ladies and gentlemen. There are certain job sectors which should remain here, such as the tech industry and healthcare (because they’re high-paying, and we should retain that money locally), but manufacturing and other internationally competitive industries often must be outsourced in order to remain competitive with the marketplace. Tariffs and duties only level the field so much.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 3:03 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Ummmm… Usually it’s the result of cost of living differences. The reason we outsource call centers to India isn’t tax savings: it’s that we pay them a quarter of what we would pay for comparable workers in America.
The second most common reason to outsource is to focus on your core business. Outsourcing isn’t just moving jobs overseas, it’s getting rid of the IT department and hiring a consulting firm to provide the same services.
And moving jobs out to avoid regulation ought to be criminal. “It’s illegal to do this in America, so we’ll just do it in Indonesia”? Blech.
Don't believe a word I say, I don't train BJJ. -- TangleBones
by jemaleddin on Nov 20, 2008 3:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What about the outsourcing of jobs from say Ohio to neighboring states? Should that be criminal?
by Richard Wade on Nov 20, 2008 4:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No dude, living in Ohio should be criminal. Too cold in the winter, too hot in the summer! And all that cold with nowhere decent to ski? CRIMINAL. There are so many better places to live. Probably a million on the same line of latitude. :-)
[To more directly answer your question: I was sorta kidding about the illegal, though it would certainly be unethical, and making it a state-to-state issues just reminds me of how little I give a shit about states rights and how much of a federalist I am – but that’s outside the scope of this discussion, I guess. Back to making fun of people!]
Don't believe a word I say, I don't train BJJ. -- TangleBones
by jemaleddin on Nov 20, 2008 4:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And I've suggested multiple times now
that these guys should sue. If there’s a case, then bring it and spank the company for abusing its position. I’m all for that.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 1:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
5% disgruntled workers? I believe that any company would
take that in a heartbeat for overall success
by dnevil001 on Nov 20, 2008 2:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That you are aware of.
There are always more.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Nov 20, 2008 2:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
True, but I would
think if it was a bad business deal we would hear from guys like Randy who typically always sign very smart deals
by dnevil001 on Nov 20, 2008 2:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Hes already famous for disputing bad UFC deals, and who is to say he didnt get some clauses out of his contract as part of his re-negotiation. The UFC gives certain fighters the privilige to modify the contract and still be able to sign it.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Nov 20, 2008 2:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Thats not really the case when it comes to licensing rights.
by Day Man on Nov 20, 2008 1:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well apparently they do have it.
Do you think that the game will suffer without Fitch, Cain or Koscheck?
by dnevil001 on Nov 20, 2008 1:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It shouldnt. Thats what we believe.
But THQ already did the work on Fitch because he was promised to them, and THQ put the work on something that they thought was promised and is now not. That is why Zuffa was trying to force Fitch to sign it, because they F’ed Up and THQ is pisse.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Nov 20, 2008 1:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
THQ
wanted the opportunity to have access to all of the UFC fighters. In saying that, do we really believe they give two shits about Fitch or Cain being on their game, or are they happy with Couture, Liddell, Lesnar, Rampage, All of the Silva’s, Griffin?
by dnevil001 on Nov 20, 2008 2:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes because THQ is doing horrible and they fear EA Sports.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Nov 20, 2008 2:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No idea
about that, but the point was THQ could give two shits about those guys being in their game.
by dnevil001 on Nov 20, 2008 2:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I knot it is. It is a fact.
2008 Latest Filing:
THQ shares battered on poor results, forecast
Video game publisher plans to lay off 250 works to cut development costs
by MMASuPreMaCy on Nov 20, 2008 2:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Everyone fears EA Sports..
..except for SquareEnix. Not much overlap there.
Exclusivity has become the sports video game industries “Coin of The Realm.” MLB is exclusive to Sony’s MLB: The Show franchise, and the NFL is exclusive to the EA Madden franchise. THQ wants exclusivity to the MMA world. It’s pretty critical, actually.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 2:40 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Dana made a commitment
because he felt he could accomplish the task. And if “all” that has to happen is a half dozen fighters get cut in order to whip the rest into line, then so be it. At least, that sounds like Dana’s mentality.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 1:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well said,
sometimes a business decision does not sit well with all parts of their employees & those people have to be removed from it. It is still ultimately a good business decision.
by dnevil001 on Nov 20, 2008 1:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
First off you don’t have any idea what the hell you are talking about…
Every commitment to THQ was delivered…. there are more than enough fighters in the game.
by mmalogic on Nov 20, 2008 1:36 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
They committed certain fighters that were not signed yet.
That is an F’up. THQ did work on Fitch when he did not sign the contract yet.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Nov 20, 2008 1:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
you fucktard only a minimum number of fighters were committed…
by mmalogic on Nov 20, 2008 1:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This has to do with THQ and the UFC, not just what the UFC promised to THQ.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Nov 20, 2008 1:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
"We were already promised to THQ by the UFC, even though none of us were under contract (for that)," Fitch said. "In order to save face, they had to force us to sign this thing."
by MMASuPreMaCy on Nov 20, 2008 1:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Remember
that this is Fitch’s perspective, so it’s likely to be as biased in his favor as possible. Who’s to say that’s actually what happened? It could be this is just more hyperbole and rhetoric.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 1:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
As far as sources, that is pretty much as good as you are going to get since Dana dodged the question when he was asked.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Nov 20, 2008 2:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I won’t argue that it’s a good source, I’m just saying you have to put something on the other end of the scales if you want to construct an accurate representation of the whole picture. How much you put on the other end of the scales depends on your personal angle and opinion.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 2:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
How about this from Sam Caplan:
The fact that THQ had been promised exclusive access to the likeness of the entire UFC roster when the UFC wasn’t in a position to make such an assurance is believed to be a reason why the promotion has acted in haste in regards to demanding its fighters sign over their likenesses for “Undisputed.”
by MMASuPreMaCy on Nov 20, 2008 2:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Five Ounces of Pain has been informed that THQ was none too pleased upon learning that rival Electronic Arts has commenced work on an MMA game of its own and that plans are in motion to involve a great deal of recognizable fighters.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Nov 20, 2008 2:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
All that quote, and the larger clip below does is expand the verbosity of what we already know.
This is business. Everything is speculative.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 2:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Geez, ok.
No point on ever having sources than because it is just one persons opinion.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Nov 20, 2008 2:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Triangulation
is the key with sources. You can’t just take what one says as gospel. You’ve gotta get as many different angles as possible, then combine the information in whatever manner makes the most sense. That’s usually pretty close to the truth of the matter.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 2:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Not so.
What Caplan writes is the truth.
:)
He did his research, and that is what he came up with.
He even spoke with THQ for crying out load. Dana refused to talk about it and just said F*** Fitch, F*** AKA.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Nov 20, 2008 2:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
yeah that is what his handlers told fitch…
but the understanding is wrong.
“John FItch” wasnt promised to THQ.
UFC fighters were…
So again I say in conclusion if you want to be a UFC fighter you will be in the game…
In other words the terms and conditions of your credit card has been updated if you agree to them great, if not sorry, no hard feelings – we hope you find a credit card provider with terms and conditions that are more suitable for you.
by mmalogic on Nov 20, 2008 2:23 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
If thats the case then I retract my arguement re the screw up. I was under the impression that the entire reason Dana was turning the screws so hard is that he promised that all of the fighters under contract would be available for the game.
Can you link me to the info about the deal so I can check it out?
by Day Man on Nov 20, 2008 1:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
“We were already promised to THQ by the UFC, even though none of us were under contract (for that),” Fitch said. “In order to save face, they had to force us to sign this thing.”
by MMASuPreMaCy on Nov 20, 2008 1:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
yeah that is what his handlers told fitch…
but the understanding is wrong.
“John FItch” wasnt promised to THQ.
UFC fighters were…
So again I say in conclusion if you want to be a UFC fighter you will be in the game…
In other words the terms and conditions of your credit card has been updated if you agree to them great, if not sorry, no hard feelings – we hope you find a credit card provider with terms and conditions that are more suitable for you.
by mmalogic on Nov 20, 2008 2:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I will take Sam Caplan's word...
The fact that THQ had been promised exclusive access to the likeness of the entire UFC roster when the UFC wasn’t in a position to make such an assurance is believed to be a reason why the promotion has acted in haste in regards to demanding its fighters sign over their likenesses for "Undisputed."
by MMASuPreMaCy on Nov 20, 2008 2:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Alright, we’re all familiar with the quote. No need to keep posting it.
by Luke Thomas on Nov 20, 2008 2:27 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Seems like people are just ignoring it.
Oh well.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Nov 20, 2008 2:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Easy, man. No name calling. Please. We need your perspective around here, just be cool.
by Luke Thomas on Nov 20, 2008 1:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You shouldn’t be smiling about that, man.
We’re debating this subject in the hopes of shedding some light on the situation, and hopefully formulating some ideas on how to remedy the situation.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 1:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I am stating what I know and providing my point.
If someone wants to start calling peopel names and beign an idiot, I will laugh about it.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Nov 20, 2008 2:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
THQ is investing heavily in launching this and it’s kind of a slap in the face if a fighter fighting in the UFC is featured in another game.
There are other implications as well… It’s like a fighter fighting in the UFC and being featured in another MMA DVD.
But the bottom line like I said is the “terms and conditions” have been updated to your credit card you are free to cancel if you wish.
End of story.
by mmalogic on Nov 20, 2008 1:34 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Well put, as usual mmalogic.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 1:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I appreciate all of the responses, but I still feel left very unsatisfied. I don’t think any intellectually honest person would ever say any well-intentioned union would ever allow anything like this. Obviously, such a union does not exist so we are left where you accurately describe: take what Zuffa can give you or walk.
But I personally do not find either the manner in which this was pursued or the contract itself to be optimized for mutual benefit. Even if they had to sign away likeness right for the video games, they make no money on them – something players in other major sports AND the WWE get. We are not even meeting basic industry standards here.
by Luke Thomas on Nov 20, 2008 1:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Is there a sour taste over the whole affair?
Absolutely right. But this is how industries are built, like it or not. That sounds trite, but it’s just perspective. If there’s not enough money in something for a well-to-do person/group to throw all their money into it (in the hopes of doubling or tripling their investment, compared to alternative options) then the industry will simply fail to grow into anything meaningful.
These things take time. I personally hope the fighters sue the UFC so we can determine once-and-for-all if their business practices are legal. If they are, then this discussion is purely emotional, and while emotion is a hugely powerful force, it’s not going to change the way Dana & Co. do business.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 1:57 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
no one said a union would agree to this or that…
go ask some of your writers to unionize and let’s see what they come up with on what they want.
ok the wwe offers money for the game – then the answer is go work for the wwe.
The real questions arent being asked…
and that is “what is the best move for fitch” and “are his handlers giving him the best advice”?
what is his gain for signing and his loss for not signing…
that’s the bottom line.
by mmalogic on Nov 20, 2008 1:57 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
100% correct.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 2:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Right, but the answer to the question of what’s best for Fitch or any fighter is not automatic signing the agreement. People often go on to have multiple careers. Maybe Fitch won’t, but what if others get into professional wrestling or some other sport that ends up in video games? Not only can he not make money, he can’t even be in it. I agree there is tremendous upside to signing, but to think there’s no downside is simply not accurate. Obviously this has to be weighed by Fitch and we may all personally have different takes on what we would do in that situation, but to suggest signing is the right answer is not so clear at this stage.
by Luke Thomas on Nov 20, 2008 2:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And you're right that we don't know as much about the situation as Fitch does.
So we don’t know what his alternatives are to MMA/UFC. Maybe he’s got a video-game company that he wanted to front, who knows?
The point is this, from my viewpoint: if Fitch believes it’s better to discard his UFC career in favor of these “other” opportunities, then he’s made an informed decision, and we shouldn’t be trying to get his back. If he’s being manipulated by a bad manager into being a human shield in a different issue, then we need to get his back.
From my perspective, throwing away his UFC career is a huge wasted opportunity, and he will likely never find another, equally lucrative opportunity in his life. But I could be wrong, I honestly don’t know much about the man and his connections.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 2:14 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
My hope is for reconciliation. I don’t want to see Fitch any place but the UFC. I hope the parties can come to an agreement.
by Luke Thomas on Nov 20, 2008 2:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
100% agreed.
I just happen to think this will require elimination of Fitch’s (mis)management team.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 2:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Good idea. Jon, if you need a new agent, Day Man (fighter of the Night Man, champion of the sun, master of karate and friendship) is available.
by Day Man on Nov 20, 2008 2:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes,
my thoughts on this are that it would seem reasonable for these fighters to be able to gain royalties from these games at some point & maybe the UFC is in a time crunch to get this done. Why are we not hearing from a majority of the fighters re this?
by dnevil001 on Nov 20, 2008 2:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
My personal opinion aside…
whether its good or bad for him he knows…
Its just important for him to get the whole story.
Not just that dana is trying to butt fuck him with this.
But at the end of the day these are the new terms and conditions he can do what he wants.
And zuffa doesnt need to get into strategy on some of their moves.
Businesses alway update their policies either because of a strategic alliance, new partner etc… This affects their vendors, employees, agents, etc…
by mmalogic on Nov 20, 2008 2:31 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Rarely do you get such wisdom from a man with no Shift key on his keyboard.
by Richard Wade on Nov 20, 2008 3:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes,
but how many companies ever “pursued or the contract itself to be optimized for mutual benefit.?” Every company would wish for a contract to be as onesided in their favor as possible.
by dnevil001 on Nov 20, 2008 2:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So would the employee.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 2:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Of course,
& rightfully so. But not many of those end up in favor of the smaller, lesser known employee. Fact of business
by dnevil001 on Nov 20, 2008 2:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Absolutely right.
But let’s not pretend that one side is fair-minded while the other is tyrannical and despotic. That’s my main point.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 2:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Not at all,
my point was that this is very normal for any business. We should not be surprised by the actions of the UFC. We are all upset at the thought of losing talented fighters to smaller promotions & not being able to see them compete against top level guys.
by dnevil001 on Nov 20, 2008 2:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
We see the issue in the same light.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 2:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I could be wrong here, but I recall reading someting about a month or so ago that said Randy Couture will not be in the game because he wouldn’t sign this same type of deal and that he was going to be appearing in an EA sports MMA game… IF this is true how does he get to skirt this system while Fitch gets fired?
by DJ Soma on Nov 20, 2008 1:44 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Yup, you are correct.
Last I heard was that Couture was out though, and Frank Shamrock was in.
I am not sure where that stands now.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Nov 20, 2008 1:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Because the video game thing is not 100% of the Fitch issue that everyone want to believe so they can crucify Dana.
This is the straw that broke the camel’s back between Dana and Fitch’s management team. This is a very complicated situation, I’m sure all of the details will never get out.
by Phildo on Nov 20, 2008 1:46 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Cause Couture has a little more bargaining power than Fitch, Velasquez, and other AKA guys. Couture sells fights, those guys do not. There has to be difference between top stars and others. If all fighters had the same rights as top guys, UFC would be out of business and we would all get hosed.
by RollinOnShabbos on Nov 20, 2008 1:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I believe Couture signed that agreement was signed while he was in MMA purgatory for a year. Since the exclusive rights contract the UFC is jamming down these guys throats seems to a recent development, Randy’s not really in the wrong. I don’t think it has anything to with Randy’s pull within the company as the UFC has made it pretty clear that no one fighter will push them around on anything.
I wouldn’t be surprised if theres been some meetings on getting Randy out of that video game deal or a handshake agreement that he makes this one and then joins the UFC game after that (either in the next installment or through DLC).
by Pete Smart on Nov 20, 2008 1:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Guess what…
Randy is in the THQ game…
Guess what…
Randy signed the lifetime exclusive…..
Guess what…
by mmalogic on Nov 20, 2008 2:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ignore my above comment. Thanks for the info Logic.
by Pete Smart on Nov 20, 2008 2:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Some fighters have signed the agreement, but we don’t know whether they were given the privilige to modify the contract. On the last merchandising deal, that was the case with the UFC cash cows. So someone could have signed the deal, not not give up their exclusivity.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Nov 20, 2008 2:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'll take a stab at it..
1. As someone said above, nabbing the exclusive rights to a fighter ensures that another company cannot come along and develop “Jon Fitch Presents MMA” or something along those lines. Marketing this all under one banner, the UFC wants all of its fighters to be in its games and no where else. It’s not a good business model to have your media products competing against those of people you are paying. The UFC by doing this is making sure that there is only one MMA video game out there and people will have to buy it if they want an MMA experience. Example: EA’s stranglehold on the NFL with Madden.
2. The UFC is in a unique position that I think any corporate entity would try to take an advantage of. While there are other promotions out there, none of them for the most part are as lucrative or profitable for the fighters as the UFC is. Most fighters aspire to fight there so being that the UFC is the place to be and there is no union to force the UFC’s hand, they are able to make demands that otherwise wouldn’t be possible. They are taking advantage of this situation now while they hold all the cards before it becomes a level playing field (assuming a fighter union is created).
I think questions 3 & 4 were already answered.
I do think there is more to this situation then just the video game issue but seeing how profitable and lucrative the video game industry is, you can see why the Zuffa machine wants complete control o their fighters regarding this amongst all the other things that have been reported for months.
by Pete Smart on Nov 20, 2008 1:48 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Surprisingly (?), the video game industry is as big or bigger than Hollywood. I don’t remember the exact figure though.
by bigweeze on Nov 20, 2008 1:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
WoW has ~12mil active subscribers @$15/month.
That’s well over $2bil/year in revenue for one game. Now that game accounts for something like 70% of all online gaming subscriptions, but still..we’re only talking about subscriptions, not hardware.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 2:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Interactive media is the future which is why those rights are so important.
by Day Man on Nov 20, 2008 2:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
From USA Today:
‘The video game deal? Yes, we have asked guys to sign an exclusive video game deal. And I haven’t had a problem with that at all. All the guys that I’m concerned with and care about — there’s only a certain amount of guys that make a difference in a video game. All those guys have done it; it has nothing to do with that.
Are people not going to buy the video game because Cain Velasquez, Josh Koscheck or Jon Fitch aren’t in the video game? No. All the guys that I needed to sign the deal, the guys that are my partners, have signed the video game deal for me.’
It’s funny that Dana says explicitly that they don’t need them for the video game, yet is willing to fire them over this.
by Carpal on Nov 20, 2008 1:58 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Exactly. There is more to it than just that.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Nov 20, 2008 2:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You can only take a stand on principle if you’re the little guy, subo.
by Richard Wade on Nov 20, 2008 3:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I was unaware of that rule. Just because you’re the little guy doesn’t make you right.
by subo on Nov 20, 2008 5:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Sure it does. I learned that reading the comments here today.
by Richard Wade on Nov 20, 2008 7:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
More Info on the THQ F Up By Zuffa
Coupling Fitch’s public statements with what has been told to what Five Ounces of Pain privately, the concern isn’t whether the UFC will use a fighter’s likeness if he is no longer with the organization. The issue is that a fighter’s new promotion will be unable to use the fighter’s likeness because the UFC will have lifetime ownership. As such, a fighter’s value to another promotion is diminished if he does not retain control over his own likeness. While the UFC would be unlikely to use the likeness of a fighter no longer in the UFC for video game purposes, the fighter’s new employer wouldn’t be able to use it as well.
It appears that the UFC may have gotten itself into a bit of a predicament as sources indicate that THQ, who is producing promotion’s upcoming video game release "UFC Undisputed 2009," operated under the auspices that they had exclusive rights to the likenesses of all fighters on the UFC roster. Five Ounces of Pain has been informed that THQ was none too pleased upon learning that rival Electronic Arts has commenced work on an MMA game of its own and that plans are in motion to involve a great deal of recognizable fighters. The sources have indicated that in addition to names such as Randy Couture, Tito Ortiz, and Frank Shamrock that known UFC fighters could potentially be featured as well.
The fact that THQ had been promised exclusive access to the likeness of the entire UFC roster when the UFC wasn’t in a position to make such an assurance is believed to be a reason why the promotion has acted in haste in regards to demanding its fighters sign over their likenesses for "Undisputed."
Sources have stated that UFC officials chose to make an example of Fitch to send a message to other agents and managers. The feeling was that Fitch was expendable and his status as an elite fighter would be an effective way to help try and convince other fighters to fall in line.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Nov 20, 2008 2:08 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
The fact that THQ had been promised exclusive access to the likeness of the entire UFC roster when the UFC wasn’t in a position to make such an assurance is believed to be a reason why the promotion has acted in haste in regards to demanding its fighters sign over their likenesses for “Undisputed.”
by MMASuPreMaCy on Nov 20, 2008 2:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Five Ounces of Pain has been informed that THQ was none too pleased upon learning that rival Electronic Arts has commenced work on an MMA game of its own and that plans are in motion to involve a great deal of recognizable fighters. The sources have indicated that in addition to names such as Randy Couture, Tito Ortiz, and Frank Shamrock that known UFC fighters could potentially be featured as well.
Looks like Randy, Tito, and Shamrock are in the game for EA Sports.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Nov 20, 2008 2:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Which is exactly what I said in my very first post on this
Dana didn’t want any of his fighters to lend legitimacy to that game. Now, none of his fighter’s will.
by subo on Nov 20, 2008 2:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You mean THQ.
They are the ones who despise EA and would not like to compete with them.
THQ is basically focusing on Undisputed to become their cash cow this upcoming year, and with the money they are losing this year, the layoffs, and the canceled games for the upcoming year, it would be a huge blow to them.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Nov 20, 2008 2:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I thought he was out as well, but who knows these days.
Randy is involved in a lot of complicated situations.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Nov 20, 2008 2:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
John Fitch:
"We were already promised to THQ by the UFC, even though none of us were under contract (for that)," Fitch said. "In order to save face, they had to force us to sign this thing."
by MMASuPreMaCy on Nov 20, 2008 2:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
again “John Fitch” was not promised to anyone.
UFC fighters were.
So guess what if you’re not in the Game you aren’t a UFC fighter or will not be one soon.
by mmalogic on Nov 20, 2008 2:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The problem is that THQ already did the work for him and developed the game as if he was in it. That is time and money not spent wisely, and budgeting and scheduling is a HUGE issue for video game developers.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Nov 20, 2008 2:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
In the grand scheme of the UFC video game, putting one fighter into the game makes up a very small percentage of the amount of work that went into the game.
by Phildo on Nov 20, 2008 2:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Spoken like someone who is not a developer and financially struggling this year and had to lay off people.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Nov 20, 2008 2:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about here.
by Phildo on Nov 20, 2008 2:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, I do.
THQ was worth 25 dollars a share a few months ago and now they are down to 3.44 cents. They had to restructure and lay off 250 workers. They need the UFC game to be successful or they will struggle to make it through next year.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Nov 20, 2008 2:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And as a developer, I know what I am talkinga bout on that end as well.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Nov 20, 2008 2:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
How smart of a developer are you when it takes only a few hours to scan someone…
are you still on a commodore 67?
and why are you assuming fitch was already scanned?
by mmalogic on Nov 20, 2008 3:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It takes money and time.
You also have to do touch ups and graphic enhancement on each character.
Ofcourse, it is not 100%, but that is what I heard.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Nov 20, 2008 3:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
But making the Jon Fitch character is not going to have any impact on their bottom line.
What is the difference in Madden between Eli Manning and Drew Brees?
The color of their uniform, the face, and their statistics.
by Phildo on Nov 20, 2008 2:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It is okay. You don’t know that they had to scan fighters, do a bunch of touch up and graphic work on each character, etc.
This is an old game where all the characters will have the same body.
Each fighter is worked on in great detail.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Nov 20, 2008 2:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m willing to bet they spent more time developing the fighting engine, working on how the ground game works and all that, then on scanning the fighters and doing touch up graphic work.
I understand that it’s not Tecmo Bowl, but to act like putting 1 fighter into and then out of the game is going to bankrupt the company is just delusional.
by Phildo on Nov 20, 2008 2:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
1 fighter?
How about everyone who hasn’t signed the deal?
You are forgetting if they spent time on Kos or Cain or anyone else who has not signed as well.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Nov 20, 2008 2:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Do you even know if they’ve made these fighters yet, or are you just assuming the biggest anti-Zuffa angle you can find?
In the grand scheme of things a few non-superstar fighters are not going to make or break this game.
by Phildo on Nov 20, 2008 2:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
There was a report for Undisputed that they already worked on Fitch and many fighters, and that was months ago.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Nov 20, 2008 3:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And of course the Engine takes up a bunch of time, but you never develop a new engine from scratch. You would never finish games if that was the case.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Nov 20, 2008 2:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Good point.
How many here are aware that the Unreal engine is still the staple in the PC game industry? Check the credits..it’s hilarious that it’s still in service, and performing well.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 2:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Everything I’ve read has said this is a completely new engine.
Regardless, I’d bet more time, effort, and resources was put into the game engine than the number of fighters that THQ made and then has to pull up because they aren’t signed.
by Phildo on Nov 20, 2008 2:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Please, you never start from scratch.
Planning, budgeting, and scheduling are things that consumers take for granted. You guys don’t know how hectic and how much effort it is to put out a game.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Nov 20, 2008 3:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It is also the entire reason why we developed object oriented programming, desginng, and graphic libraries. The whole concept of programming is you never start from scratch.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Nov 20, 2008 3:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
why are you assuming they scanned these fighters already?
by mmalogic on Nov 20, 2008 3:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
because they were scanned months ago. i saw ben saunders get scanned
by bigweeze on Nov 20, 2008 3:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Obviously not completely from scratch, but definitely more work was put into developing this game engine than went into Madden 09.
When was the last MMA game developed? They’re not just taking the WWE engine and putting new characters in it.
If you’re spending more time on the characters than the actual game, you’re doing it wrong (unless it’s EA sports making the 20th edition of madden, when you have time to dick around with the characters because the engine is 99% percent complete.)
You’re grossly misrepresenting the entire situation when you say that removing a few fighters from the game is going to bankrupt the entire game. If that was the case, THQ has more problems than contract negotiations between Jon Fitch and the UFC.
by Phildo on Nov 20, 2008 3:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The point of bringing this up is not that this is the entire problem, but it doesnt help.
THQ is in BIG trouble, and they want to have exclusivity in MMA, just like they had for WWE.
EA Sports already owns Madden and Sony owns MLB. This is pretty important to THQ.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Nov 20, 2008 3:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Unless that fighter has distinctive moves like Rampage’s howl, Forrest’s punching himself in the face every time he gets hit or Chuck Liddel’s laying on the ground with his legs twitching. That takes extra work.
For guys like Fitch that are AS GENERIC AS THEY COULD POSSIBLY BE, it’s a programmer’s dream. Make an instance of the Matt Hughes class, change the skin, make the model a little narrower… Boom!
Don't believe a word I say, I don't train BJJ. -- TangleBones
by jemaleddin on Nov 20, 2008 2:49 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Good point on distinctive characteristics.
I"d completely disregarded that aspect in my other reply to this sub-thread.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 2:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
"laying on the ground with his legs twitching"
Okay, that actually made me laugh out loud.
by Richard Wade on Nov 20, 2008 3:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I was worried that shoving it in the middle of the paragraph was gonna make it slip past people. Fwew!
Don't believe a word I say, I don't train BJJ. -- TangleBones
by jemaleddin on Nov 20, 2008 3:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh no, I caught it as well. It was just getting embarrassing being the only guy who thought it was funny enough to comment on, every time.
by Day Man on Nov 20, 2008 3:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Same here.
Chuck’s almost an ‘old man’ in the MMA world, and it’s not funny to pick on old men.
That said, he’d better do that when he gets KTFO’d in the video game, or I’ll want my money back.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 3:35 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Same here. I’m going to rent it first to make sure.
by Richard Wade on Nov 20, 2008 4:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
We should make a list of requirements:
- Chuck flattens and flops like a fish after getting KO’d
- GSP’s victory sequence should feature either a lame break dance or an almost complete back flip
- When Goldberg says something really stupid, Joe should go silent for 15 seconds
- Joe Stevenson should cry when he loses
- Kenny Florian’s model should be based on Ben Stiller
What else?
Don't believe a word I say, I don't train BJJ. -- TangleBones
by jemaleddin on Nov 20, 2008 4:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The guys who train in New Mexico need to do the pre-fight nipple twist.
by Richard Wade on Nov 20, 2008 4:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
C.B.’s character submits and then yells at the ref.
Any Herb Dean ref’d fight allows you to deliver 3-4 extra punches to a downed fighter before the fight is stopped.
by Day Man on Nov 20, 2008 5:52 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Phildo is correct. The amount of work that goes into one fighters dialogue/narration, animations and character design is fairly minor.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 2:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, like I said, this is not going to be a generic game, and THQ is putting A LOT OF WORK and RESOURCES on it. It is crucial to their survival next year.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Nov 20, 2008 2:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It's also a golden opportunity for them,
so it’s not like they’re being taken advantage of. They’re being offered exclusive right to the fastest-growing combat/sport franchise in the world. It’s a pretty amazing opportunity for them, so they should be able to weather a little bi