NBA live 08 PC

Madden is that good?

Well out of the box isn't, just like I think NBA live will be...
It has a pretty bad sim engine (rushers with 2000+ yds, passers under 3500 yds.), current-gen graphics, missing portraits (Mario Williams, Maurice Jones-Drew, and others) etc...

But guys at football-freaks, have released a cool editor (NZA's) with which you can edit the sim engine to get realistic results.
Besides they've solved some of the blatant bugs from last year, added gang tackilng, a few good reception animations (one handed, etc...), accel. clock works with SS mode, and quite a few more adds to the game, that with the right amount of external editing, it's playable and really fun.

Madden is that good?

its not really about madden being that good as it is nba live being that bad. then again this is from a guy who feels the dynasty stuff is the best thing about these games. as i play the career thing madden has all i can think about is "man i wish nba lvie could have this instead". thats the stuff i love about the sports games.

Hey Andrew, I heard something about a demo version for downloading during the conversation on nba live´s stage demo. Do you know something about it? It should be available one month before the official release.

For now it looks as though the Xbox 360 is the only one that's going to have a demo available through Xbox Live. No word on a PC or PS3 demo as yet.

Benji, I hate to do this to ya, as I do like most of your posts and normally you seem to know what you're talking about.
But good Laika, that response to Andrew about file sharing had so much wrong and inaccurate I don't even know where to begin picking it apart.

Well, Live doesn't have a license agreement like say Windows. And a license almost never gives you authority to resell the product. That's usually a big violation of said license.

Yes, all games are sold with some form of EULA(end user license agreement)both in the download instruction sheet and one before install. You know that page of legalese that you ignore before hitting the "I agree, continue installing" button, that means you agreed to sign that license. Secondly, most of these do have a provision for the end user to transfer the license to another person. The original owner must erase the copy on their own computer and any backups before they can legally sell or trade it.

Purchasing a used copy is getting the "property" of others without their permission if the game is the property of EA Sports. But there is an implicit argument that once I purchase the game from the store, it is my property, and when I sell it to the store I am granting them it as their property. Then they can sell it to someone else. If EA or any other game company could do so, they would directly challenge this.

Again, the EULA is usually pretty clear. The software(or music, or motion picture)is sellable and tradable as long as it's on the original format(i.e. cd, dvd, floppy disk, tape, whatever). Selling the original disk with the game on it is absolutely legal, copying the game to another disk or even another medium and selling the copy is not.

Based on the absolutely horrible copyright law we have today, the store and customers would be found in violation of the copyright if it found as EA's property.

Only if the game were switched to another hardcopy or medium. Then the store would be liable for accepting and selling stolen property, the final customer could be liable for accepting stolen goods, neither of which would be worth the time and resources of prosecuting unless numerous copies were sold.

That's completely different. That is actual theft, you are stealing the store's property AND removing that property from the market. Causing a loss to the store, the distributor, customer, etc. In downloading you are not taking the property from anyone, but instead acquiring a copy.

In downloading you are in fact creating a copy that did not exist. When downloading a legal copy of software(or music, or motion pictures)from the distributor, each copy is considered separate from the original, such is the same for illegal copying. A copy of the product is not the original product, but a separate product entirely. One that has been created and distributed without license. Also most countries have theft laws that include the theft of non-physically tangible items, just because you can't put it in your pocket doesn't mean it can't be stolen.

Fair use theory allowed you to tape something off TV, make a photocopy of a magazine page for your files, etc.

That's not even an oversimplification of Fair Use laws(yes, law not theory), it's an entirely different issue. These copies are not created for re-distribution, and are only legal if they remain that way. Once they are sold or traded, or the original is sold or traded without the copies being destroyed, then they become illegal.
Fair Use law involves using a copyrighted song or image for news reporting or parody purposes. Even then, it is only guaranteed after being challenged in court.

How is downloading a TV show different from if your friend video taped last nights Seinfeld for you and gave you the tape?

Did your friend give you his only copy?, or did he stand in the middle of a public place loudly proclaiming he'd make a copy for the first thousand people that ask for one?. The former is unprovable, the latter is unabashed advertising of an illegal act. The more copies, the bigger the crime, and also the bigger chance of being caught.

Previously that was understood to be within the use of copyrights. So was making a mixtape for your friend, or giving them photocopies of a how to guide from a book.

Nope, neither were within the use of copyright. They were just too small to prosecute. Change the 1-1 ratio to a 1-1000 then you have enough liability to make it worth taking to trial.

Also, this legal stuff differs from country to country. In some countries there is absolutely no law against downloading something off the internet, as they have wide fair use protections. That doesn't change the moral argument in those countries to make it alright.

At least you weren't one of those asshats that hold up China, Cuba or North Korea as examples of "how to do it right". Nevertheless, that argument is so wide spread that I'll do a pre-emptive strike on it any way. China, Cuba, North Korea, et al, don't have wide fair use protections, they just have no personal property laws. In communism, socialism and fascism, the collective/government/exhalted-leader owns everything, the individual owns nothing. As these countries can't make money from Japanese, American, and European made software, music and movies, what do they care if their people distribute free copies?.

If used games are legal, downloading games cannot be. As the former implies the copyright over the discs' data is not strong enough to deny a user from reselling that copyrighted data.

Again, selling the original disc that contains the data is legal, a copy of the data on any other format is only illegal if sold, traded or otherwise distributed. Downloading is more prosecutable because one copy can be distributed to thousands and potentially millions of people, and therefor easier to catch and costing higher liabilities.

I think I should also note, that downloading is almost borderline not illegal. Uploading however is. This is why these companies have to be able to prove they can receive copyrighted data from you, not that you just have possession of it.

Nope, no borderline about it. Downloading is still recieving illegal goods, the liability for having an illegal copy is just to small to be worth the while to take to court. Uploading has the added problems of distribution and advertising illegal activity, increasing both the liability of the offender and the likelyhood of being caught.

Edited to add:
Aaargh, I sound like some freakin' egghead interlectual. Ok, here's the simplified statement:
When you buy a game, you buy the rights to one copy. You do not own any duplicates made from that copy, as each duplicate is seperate from the original purchase.
You are freely allowed to sell, trade or re-distribute a DVD with a game on it, as you own that. You do not own the game without the DVD, so it is illegal to sell, trade or re-distribute the game in any format other than the DVD that the game was sold on.

Yes, all games are sold with some form of EULA(end user license agreement)both in the download instruction sheet and one before install. You know that page of legalese that you ignore before hitting the "I agree, continue installing" button, that means you agreed to sign that license.

Actually, very few if any games I have contain any sort of EULA. None of my console games do. (Some, like Gran Turismo do have warnings that I cannot film the game and create a video of it, but no explicit license agreement.) Live 07 doesn't, EA didn't ask me if I wanted to agree to their license. The only games on my PC that have one currently are Steam titles, and that is more about Steam than the games.

I only ever see EULA's on non-game software, and I'm always agreeing to not sue Microsoft when I hurt myself on the cd case.

Then the store would be liable for accepting and selling stolen property

In an unrelated topic, has anyone ever noticed how many games at GameStop/EB Games come in a "Blockbuster Video" case?

In downloading you are in fact creating a copy that did not exist. When downloading a legal copy of software(or music, or motion pictures)from the distributor, each copy is considered separate from the original, such is the same for illegal copying. A copy of the product is not the original product, but a separate product entirely. One that has been created and distributed without license. Also most countries have theft laws that include the theft of non-physically tangible items, just because you can't put it in your pocket doesn't mean it can't be stolen.

Again, I was not arguing whether or not things are legal, but whether or not they make logical or moral sense.

That's not even an oversimplification of Fair Use laws(yes, law not theory), it's an entirely different issue. These copies are not created for re-distribution, and are only legal if they remain that way. Once they are sold or traded, or the original is sold or traded without the copies being destroyed, then they become illegal.
Fair Use law involves using a copyrighted song or image for news reporting or parody purposes. Even then, it is only guaranteed after being challenged in court.

I know, fair use also allows for vast allowances in an academic setting, and I would prefer to think of it that fair use would be guaranteed until the fair use was challenged in court by the copyright holder. And I don't really care about fair use LAW. I care about the theory.

Did your friend give you his only copy?, or did he stand in the middle of a public place loudly proclaiming he'd make a copy for the first thousand people that ask for one?. The former is unprovable, the latter is unabashed advertising of an illegal act. The more copies, the bigger the crime, and also the bigger chance of being caught.

Once once again, I was never questioning the legality of these acts.

At least you weren't one of those asshats that hold up China, Cuba or North Korea as examples of "how to do it right". Nevertheless, that argument is so wide spread that I'll do a pre-emptive strike on it any way. China, Cuba, North Korea, et al, don't have wide fair use protections, they just have no personal property laws. In communism, socialism and fascism, the collective/government/exhalted-leader owns everything, the individual owns nothing. As these countries can't make money from Japanese, American, and European made software, music and movies, what do they care if their people distribute free copies?.

I would never hold up one of those nations as an example for anything. I was referring to some European countries (also socialist/fascist/government owns everything cultures, but alas) where cases have essentially eliminated some forms of copyright protection.

Nope, no borderline about it. Downloading is still recieving illegal goods, the liability for having an illegal copy is just to small to be worth the while to take to court. Uploading has the added problems of distribution and advertising illegal activity, increasing both the liability of the offender and the likelyhood of being caught.

I meant in practice, I didn't mean to write "illegal/legal", I had stopped to re-read Andrew's post. It is near impossible to prove acquisition of illegal goods in the case of downloading, which is why they have failed on so many attempts at it, especially with sympathy to entrapment defenses. There's a reason they've given up going after downloaders and trying to get at the sources. Either way I think it's a waste of time and money for the game companies.

When you buy a game, you buy the rights to one copy. You do not own any duplicates made from that copy, as each duplicate is seperate from the original purchase.
You are freely allowed to sell, trade or re-distribute a DVD with a game on it, as you own that. You do not own the game without the DVD, so it is illegal to sell, trade or re-distribute the game in any format other than the DVD that the game was sold on.

That's way too simplified, as I could find just as many legal errors in that as one thinks to find in my simplified theory-focused ramblings. Again, I was never attempting to argue that the laws didn't exist, simply that they were questionable or illogical and the address question of whether not buying the game constituted theft.

My original and still point, which was never denying the current legal situation: If a gamer decides Live is not worth $40, and does not buy the game is he a thief (not legally) if he were to download it? I do not believe so, as I do not think EA is entitled to that gamers money. I think this for the same reason he is not a thief for denying EA the money and buying the game used.

And I was commenting that I think the piracy boogeyman is so overblown. The games industry has never had bigger sales numbers. Mismanagement (Take Two), crap production (EA and Ubi Soft) and poor budgeting (everyone?) is probably costing them more than piracy, most of which happens overseas, and assumes those people would/could buy the game to begin with.

I don't care about what's legal or illegal. I will follow laws (to an extent) and recommend everyone else do irregardless. But I will question the thought process or underpining of a law without remorse. I'm not one of those people who think because something is illegal, it is immoral, or vice versa. Or that because a law exists, it is just.

I do like most of your posts and normally you seem to know what you're talking about

Well, I would think that makes you seem like you don't know what you're talking about.

whilst we are on copyright law i'll make my contribution

CD cracks are NOT ILLEGAL as long as they are not sold.

CD cracks are NOT ILLEGAL as long as they are not sold.

Matt, just change that to distributed and you have it mostly right.
What you do with the files on you computer is fairly protected, the trouble comes when you need to copy files from others to make the cracks work. For example: you can edit your legaly bought nbalive07.exe till you're blue in the face, you just can't supply it to anybody else without removing all EA code.

Edited to add:
To Benji,
Again, sorry to single you out. File sharing and the laws surrounding it is, for some unexplicable reson, one of them issues that I need to blather on about even when it's to the point that I don't even care. I've given up arguing morality in prety much all cases, which is why I only responded to questions or statements about legality and liabilty. To me, at this point at least, it's about keeping members of this board out of court without making them paranoid to do anything with games, music, etc.

Damn it, I was gonna say something cute here, but I couldn't get the freakin' quote right. 'Course when I finaly do remember it there woun't be anything relevant subjects to post it to. Crappy sundays, anyway.

Edited to remove duplicate post, sorry folks.

Last edited by OldFoolStyle on Tue Aug 21, 2007 9:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Madden 08 is basically the same shit like 07 lol

Madden 08 is basically the same shit like 07 lol

point still remains, madden makes live look like a joke

Um, what? PC games quality has dropped off? Since when?

I'll retract and reform that statement. There are some decent franchise still to be found/enjoyed. The problem is the inundation of these quick-hitting publishers that are flooding the market with absolute crap. How many clones of roller coaster tycoon will we see this year? how many budget ww2 shooters? how many lackluster ports that sully the image of a good console game? (Capcom ESPECIALLY).

I admit there is a bit of resurgence in the PC scene as of late, but to say that the creativy and originality (and fundamental approach for developing said games), are the same as it was 10 years ago, would be completely wrong IMO. I would venture to say that for every game that would earn a 7 rating (out of 10) there will be 5 that would earn a 3. Also, 3 of the 5 "7.0" games we get, are console ports.

I think whats so frustrating to me, with live in particular, is experiencing the high water mark this game left with 2000, and watched its rather unimpressive decline to 2007. Sure new features here and there, but the pride and focus shown with 2000 has not been shown since.

Thats what I was getting to about the quality part. I know there are some quite good games out there to be had on the PC. But theres more crap than there should be.

suggested system requirements are:
Pentium III 1.3 GHz, 512 MB RAM, graphic card 64MB (GeForce 4 or better), 4 GB HDD, Windows XP/Vista.

http://games.gamepressure.com/game_info.asp?ID=96
Live is not next-gen

Evil Islands?

The correct link is

http://games.gamepressure.com/game_info.asp?ID=9695

Hopefully that will stop the "Is the pc version going to be next-gen?" posts.

i think they will never improve the graphics...

The problem is the inundation of these quick-hitting publishers that are flooding the market with absolute crap. How many clones of roller coaster tycoon will we see this year? how many budget ww2 shooters? how many lackluster ports that sully the image of a good console game? (Capcom ESPECIALLY).

Welcome to PC gaming (and really all gaming) forever?

Thats what I was getting to about the quality part. I know there are some quite good games out there to be had on the PC. But theres more crap than there should be.

It's always been that way, and always will be that way. The reason it seems "less" on the consoles is that the game makers focus their efforts there, and there is no gatekeeping on the PC, anyone can release a game. On the consoles Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo/Sega act[ed] as gatekeepers that only authorize some things.

There are so many PC games that come out every month, no one could hope to review them all, let alone play them all.

but to say that the creativy and originality (and fundamental approach for developing said games), are the same as it was 10 years ago, would be completely wrong IMO

Some people, including myself, would say the entire game industry is that way, not just the PC sector. What are we seeing on consoles that is completely revolutionary and new? Isn't most of it "bigger" and "better" versions of what we've had before?

Hopefully that will stop the "Is the pc version going to be next-gen?" posts.

I would have thought confirmation from the executive producer of the series would have achieved that but I guess some people are still holding out hope.

Anyway, good looking out guys.

Good find on the specs. I hope it sticks.

I don't want a Next-Gen (or Current-Gen as how benji puts it) NBA Live 08 for my PC. If the game comes out as a Next-Gen port to the PC, all patchers will be just posters here.

Hey andrew, do you know if there's going to be a visible Primacy Rating when you go to the Edit Player option and have the ppl at EA sports acknowledge that they have fixed the PG bug problem (when the PG took the majority of the shots in 07)?

The downside is that a bulk of the innovations/new features are being developed for that platform and not the PC, so while the game would remain patchable there wouldn't be much in the way of new features. Besides, depending on the file formats a port from the 360/PS3 version might still be patchable.

regarding the specs...
the ram jumped from 256mb => 512mb
i think there is a minor improvement in the graphics...

We'll see. 06's graphics are still better than that of 07 though.

lean, they are the same man, i mean shipped yes 06 was better cause of this 256 jersey crapola but we got over that.

graphics-wise 06 and 07 are exactly the same if you use the same textures.

Me a noob Jon. I may have used the wrong term.

speaking off madden 08, after playing it i now realize that nba live is a joke, a complete joke. i have hope but unfortunatly i know it wont ever reach madden level

Honestly, I have Madden 08 and it's barely different from the 07 version. Is it worth $40 for new rosters that will be out of date in a few weeks anyway?

As to NBA Live 08, after the debacle that was NBA Live 07, I can't believe that anyone would shell out a nickel for 08. And here, I thought that when EA reorganized, the EA Sports division would improve it's product. Not!!! Unfortunately the best EA sports games are now NHL and FIFA. Well, maybe the modded MVP Baseball 05 (MVP 07) is the best, but that doesn't count.

You might want to take this with a grain of salt, but my sources indicate that for a good basketball game this year the requirements are:
1. Xbox 360 or Playstation 3
2. NBA 2K8