Judge Certifies Class-Action Football Game Pricing Lawsuit Against EA

[tlc12576]

Quote: Originally Posted by LiquorLogic

No, my analogy is fine. Two companies are in a pricing war forcing them to lower the price of their products, and one company, however they do it, eliminates the other competitor and subsequently raises the price to what it was originally. That's the issue; the fact that 2k was out bid by EA for the license isn't. Here's another analogy: you have two drug dealers in a pricing war so one of them eliminates the other one, permanently, and then starts selling his product at the price it was originally. That's no different, other than being less violent, then what EA did; they eliminated the competition so they could sell Madden at the price it was prior to the pricing war with 2k. Had EA kept the price of Madden at 29.95 after gaining the license, or never moved it down from 49.95 in the first place, this lawsuit wouldn't have any legs; however, the fact remains that EA lowered their price to compete with 2k, eliminated 2k, and then returned Madden to it's original price.

I am no esquire but I did stay at a Holiday Inn express last night and this part in bold is where I think the suit has merit. People can talk about EA can charge whatever they want and most games are $60 but the facts speak pretty loud.

[SmashMan]

Quote: Originally Posted by LiquorLogic

however, the fact remains that EA lowered their price to compete with 2k, eliminated 2k, and then returned Madden to it's original price.

(at the risk of being blunt)...so? That's how business works, doesn't it? When something goes on sale, competing brands will usually counter with their own sale. Those sale prices do not then dictate what the "typical" price would be for that item. It seems that the entire case is based on the (probably incorrect) assumption that all 2K games would be $20 from 2K5 on forward when a quick look at their baseball and basketball games the following year show that's not the case. All discounted in the 2K5 iteration, NBA/MLB received price bumps for 2K6.

This entire suit doesn't take into consideration the idea that EA raised the price back up to 49.99 because that was the typical pricing; not because they had eliminated 2K's game. The two aren't mutually exclusive, but there is a distinction there that needs to be made.

[LiquorLogic]

Quote: Originally Posted by SmashMan

(at the risk of being blunt)...so? That's how business works, doesn't it? When something goes on sale, competing brands will usually counter with their own sale. Those sale prices do not then dictate what the "typical" price would be for that item. It seems that the entire case is based on the (probably incorrect) assumption that all 2K games would be $20 from 2K5 on forward when a quick look at their baseball and basketball games the following year show that's not the case. All discounted in the 2K5 iteration, NBA/MLB received price bumps for 2K6. This entire suit doesn't take into consideration the idea that EA raised the price back up to 49.99 because that was the typical pricing; not because they had eliminated 2K's game. The two aren't mutually exclusive, but there is a distinction there that needs to be made.

This is really getting tiresome. Seriously, the "typical" pricing doesn't matter. The fact that every other 2k game wouldn't be priced at $20 doesn't matter. Whether or not EA raised the priced back up to $50 because it was the typical price doesn't matter. EA, or any other publisher, isn't entitled to sell their games at a certain price.

Here is what matters: the typical price was in fact $50. At some point EA lowered the price to $30. Now why did they (EA) do that ? Clearly, the price point of 2k5 was the reason. Now why did EA return the price of Madden to $50 ? Obviously it was because they signed an exclusive contract with the NFL, and eliminated T2 or any other potential competitor.

In a nutshell, EA sold Madden at the "typical" price of $50. Because of the competitor's price, they lowered the price of Madden below the "typical" price. They then got rid of the competition and returned Madden to it's original (and typical) price.

That's the issue.

[Critical Kills]

That is precisely how business works, you eliminate competition and then charge what the market will bear. And the football games most certainly should be compared to other games even if they aren't the same genre because the other games provide a baseline. If EA was charging $100 for Madden then this lawsuit might have a point that they were charging an unreasonable amount of money for a game that has no competition but they aren't. They are charging the generally accepted price of a video game.

As for why EA lowered the price to $29.95 and then raised it, it's quite simple, they did so because they had to compete with a product. Then that product ceased to exist, through no fault of EA's but rather through the doings of the NFL, so they then went back to charging the regular price. Why would they sell the game for $20-$30 less than they had to compared to other games when there was no competing product.

I think point here is that yes the price did change when the competing product was gone. That's most certainly true. However the elimination of the competing product isn't the issue, it's how the competing product was eliminated. Did EA eliminate it? The lawsuit seems to blame EA for this and thus that's why they're suing them but the truth is the NFL is the owner of the NFL license and can sell to whom they wish. EA wasn't the party here that was able to eliminate the competition, only the NFL was. The lawsuit is misdirected at EA, if anyone needs sued it's the NFL but they cannot be because of their anti-trust status.

[Critical Kills]

LiquorLogic - that's not the issue, that's how business in a capitalist society works. That's how it should work. And as I said, EA didn't eliminate the competition, the NFL did. The NFL has the right to control their product. You're confusing a privately held copyright with a publicly accepted goods or services. A monopoly can't apply to something like the NFL, it's not coal, wood, water or gas, ie something that is in the public interest to have fair and equal business dealings. The very nature of a privately held copyright is that it's unfair by nature as it's goal is to make maximum profit.

[Only1LT]

Quote: Originally Posted by ODogg

That is precisely how business works, you eliminate competition and then charge what the market will bear. And the football games most certainly should be compared to other games even if they aren't the same genre because the other games provide a baseline. If EA was charging $100 for Madden then this lawsuit might have a point that they were charging an unreasonable amount of money for a game that has no competition but they aren't. They are charging the generally accepted price of a video game. As for why EA lowered the price to $29.95 and then raised it, it's quite simple, they did so because they had to compete with a product. Then that product ceased to exist, through no fault of EA's but rather through the doings of the NFL, so they then went back to charging the regular price. Why would they sell the game for $20-$30 less than they had to compared to other games when there was no competing product. I think point here is that yes the price did change when the competing product was gone. That's most certainly true. However the elimination of the competing product isn't the issue, it's how the competing product was eliminated. Did EA eliminate it? The lawsuit seems to blame EA for this and thus that's why they're suing them but the truth is the NFL is the owner of the NFL license and can sell to whom they wish. EA wasn't the party here that was able to eliminate the competition, only the NFL was. The lawsuit is misdirected at EA, if anyone needs sued it's the NFL but they cannot be because of their anti-trust status.

Anti-trust status, that they may not soon have.

[DaggerSwagger]

Quote: Originally Posted by khaliib

What EA does not want is for this case to go before a "Jury" of mostly older individuals who believe the current price tag for video games is way too expensive and most likely will focus on that aspect along with buying exclusive rights to be the sole maker for these games. It's different if the case would be determined by a judge who would go by the letter of the law. But instead, older individuals who mostly believe video games are an issue one way or another. This case will not be about an EA Sports Title by itself, but about their emotional feelings towards video games in general. Or they will get that individual that has been burned by purchasing an EA product before and wants such an opportunity to get back at them. It doesn't look good when during a year your competitor (a much smaller company than EA) sells their game at a lower price than EA's, then the following year an exclusive deal is done removing any/all pricing alternatives for consumers while increasing your price. Also, it might be hard for EA to justify an increase from $29.99 to $59.99 for their football title when this titles market was/has been driven by EA itself. There was/is no football market to say this is what drove the standard for pricing, because EA is the "ONLY" producer with the exclusive deal. Another area that doesn't look good for EA is that they forenew about the new Next Gen consoles hitting the market and the exclusive deal made them the Only football developers when the units were in "HIGH" demand which coinsides with the increase in price of their football titles. This really adds to the justification of the lawsuit that EA "Price Gauge" as the sole maker. On top of this, EA has lawsuits from players from both the NFL and NCAA which lends to the assumption that EA has/is doing something that is illegal. Again, not good to have this lawsuit decided by Jurors instead of a Judge. And to add more pressure, it's being submitted as a "Class Action" suit. Can EA, after closing one of their sites, afford to lose such a case? Can you imaging the cost of damages for this "Class Action"? On a good note to us that want a 2k Pro/College Football game, because the company is mentioned in the lawsuit, it has to mean that they are involved in pushing it in some way or another. I wouldn't be suprised if other game makers (989, Acclaim etc..) decided to participate on the grounds that they to were locked out of the football market. I would also say that this is not only about any future licenses, but damages due to the money lost because of the lock-out. **Remember the Exclusive football deals and price increase came right as the Next Gen consoles where in High demand. In 2006, everyone purchased Madden to play on these "New" consoles. This is very important within the lawsuit. If this is what it takes for another game developers to have the opportunity to provide the football community with alternatives, then I'm all for it.

I'm All In As Well!!!!!

[TreFacTor]

I think this suit gets settled quietly allowing anyone who joined the lawsuit to claim about $10 for the years before madden hit next gen. As for what it means for another company being able to make another nfl game, I don't think this will have any bearing on that issue especially considering the american needle case didn't do it.