RSS
Gamers in California and Washington are bringing legal action against for is claimed to be “blatantly anticompetitive conduct” with its Madden games.
The suit says that after early competition in football games between EA and Take-Two, EA cut the price of Madden 2005 game from $49.95 to $29.95.
“Electronic Arts could have continued to compete by offering a lower price and/or a higher quality product,” the action said. “Instead, Electronic Arts quickly entered into a series of exclusive agreements with the only viable sports football associations in the United States: the National Football League, the Arena Football League, and NCAA Football.”
The suit says EA raised the price of Madden 2006 by 70 percent.
The plaintiffs are asking for damages for anyone that bought Madden past August 2005. That’s a lot of damages. Bet Peter’s happy. More here.
Viewing 14 responses
f1r3storm said:
Just don’t buy it for that price.
that_happy_cat said:
I’m going to allow this
wz said:
I hear there’s a famous soon-to-be-ex lawyer in Florida who could need a job.
But then, no.
El_MUERkO said:
excellent, hopefully they’ll win and exclusivity deals between EA and the major sporting organizations will become a thing of the past, then competition on an even footing will improve the market
we just have to look at football games to see the negative effect of the fifa license, only PES is left to compete with FIFA when there used to be 4 or 5 football games a year
Shatner said:
This isn’t just about EA. It’s not like EA go around ’stealing’ licences in the middle of the night when other publishers are catching some zzz’s.
EA can’t buy what the NFL ain’t selling. Nobody can. So, although all the talk is about EA because all the usual gamertards like to fling mud at them it’s not as black and white as that.
If I was selling a licence I’d be going to the people that can offer unparalleled marketing, product management and distribution and a big bag with $$$ in it.
As far as I’m aware, there’s no monopoly on that sort of performance so if other publishers can match the sort of deal (hint: it’s not JUST about the dollar value of the licence) then I’m sure we’ll see more ‘competition’.
I don’t think EA are anti-competitive they just do what they do better than the competition. There’s a difference.
patlike said:
El_MUERkO: That was the 10,000th VG247 comment.
Blerk said:
What does he win?
ecu said:
“I don’t think EA are anti-competitive they just do what they do better than the competition.”
XD
Funniest comment all year. EA are a fucking joke. Fuck them and their shitty sports franchises.
patlike said:
Um. Amazing kudos?
ecu said:
Sorry.
EA still piss me off with their whiter-than-white game UI’s. Their games are so clinically soulless it makes me want to hurt myself.
Shatner said:
Ecu, before getting all high and mighty and taking the tried and trusted gamer rant because you don’t like the GUIs in a game you need to understand the difference between what that means to EA’s game on your TV screen and EA securing a licence like the NFL.
As I stated in my post – marketing, product management, global distribution. These are the things that speak volumes in business. These are the things that NFL give a shit about – not whether the GUI gets an update.
Idealist gamer ranting / legal action is the joke here. It’s simply a fantastic display of pantomime logic – hoping to “boo” and jeer the high profile corporation because they believe that it must be evil.
Try to understand the terms that EA work on, as a buisness, not the terms you work on as a gamer. The difference is huge.
This court case is just a demonstration of ignorant, idealistic gamers not having a clue about how business gets done in this industry. As if there’s not enough evidence of that already!
morriss said:
You shouldn’t really go around insulting people and calling them ignorant, Shatner. Your points won’t get heard and all people will do is concentrate on the criticism.
Your manner is as condescending as it is pompous. We try and promote discussion here but insinuating people are ignorant isn’t really conducive with a friendly atmosphere.
Still, I can’t tell you what to say or how to say it. Just remember, if you give it out, be prepared to take it.
Shatner said:
If people demonstrate ignorance then they should expect to be labelled ignorant.
Ironically, gamers are world class experts at dishing out endless criticism and character assassination at the slightest provocation. It’s very big and clever to to criticise ‘real’ people whilst shielded by anonymity. I’m a gamer myself. I’ve also worked in publishing and with licences. So I don’t see how bitching about the quality of a game’s GUI is in any way relevant ammunition to counter a comment based on a company being accused of anti-competitive behaviour based on sports licencing.
By contrast, the over-the-top knee-jerk reaction whenever game culture finds itself being criticised is overblown and sensationalist.
Gamers dish it out, yet they rarely demonstrate the ability or graciousness to take any of it themselves. The condescending games media that cherishes the page hits and courts and favours these types do little to address the issue either.
If ecu had actually read my post and noted what I said rather than simply reacting to it because it didn’t fit in with his mis-interpretation and predetermined view of the situation I’d not have said what I said.
And, without wanting to sound too petty, you may want to re-calibrate your moral compass morriss, if you read my original post and see ecu’s condescending and dismissive response to it you might better understand where this discussion to a wrong turn.
If you want discussion, then accept when it pops it.
If you want a bunch of gamers constantly slapping each other on the back and telling them how awesome they all are and how they’re never wrong about anything then you’re going precisely the right way about it. I’ve no investment in this site and don’t need to pander to a specific audience though. So you’ll just have to accept my apologies for not bleating with the rest of the herd.
If people can argue with each other without even bothering to listen to each other then, to me, that is far more insulting and condescending behaviour than referring to a demonstration of ignorance as ignorance.
If you want to talk about the principles and foundations of genuine discussion then I’m sure you can work out how to get in touch with me.
morriss said:
a) ignorance – especially in this case – is subjective and b) I’ve never said or even tried to “pull you in line”: I’ve simply said, if you’re going to post as aggressively as you seem to do, don’t expect for anything you say to be taken seriously. If you simply don’t care what others think, then fine.