Judge Certifies Class-Action Football Game Pricing Lawsuit Against EA

[LiquorLogic]

Quote: Originally Posted by ODogg

That is precisely how business works, you eliminate competition and then charge what the market will bear.

That's how business works, but that's not how business is supposed to work in this country. Sure, companies break the rules; sometimes they get away with it, and sometimes (hopefully this time) they don't.

Quote: Originally Posted by ODogg

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.

How isn't EA at fault ? First, the signed the deal to get rid of 2k, didn't they. They didn't have to make the deal. Sure they would've lost the license, but it that an excuse to break the law ? Also, hasn't EA admitted to lobbying for the exclusive deal for years before they actually got it ?[/quote]

Quote: Originally Posted by ODogg

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.

It takes two to tango, and why can't the NFL be sued ? Are they not currently involved in a lawsuit with American Needle because of their exclusive license ?
Eliminating competition is illegal no matter how a company (unless they buy out the competitor) does it.

[SmashMan]

Quote: Originally Posted by LiquorLogic

This is really getting tiresome. Seriously, the "typical" pricing doesn't matter.

Why not? The entire suit depends on the assumption that 2K would've strayed from this "typical" pricing for the foreseeable future. 2K lowered all their games for their 2K5 versions. Both MLB and NBA experienced price increases in subsequent years. While we obviously don't know because of the exclusivity deal, 2K's behavior with their other budget-priced sports titles suggests that their NFL game's price would've increased. 2K5's price point was a one-year anomaly, and shouldn't be used as the base line for setting prices.

Quote:

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.

And thus begs the question...why would the $30 price of the 2005 year become the new standard pricing for Madden games?

[LiquorLogic]

Quote: Originally Posted by 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.

The case isn't over yet.

[RaychelSnr]

Quote: Originally Posted by LiquorLogic

That's how business works, but that's not how business is supposed to work in this country. Sure, companies break the rules; sometimes they get away with it, and sometimes (hopefully this time) they don't. How isn't EA at fault ? First, the signed the deal to get rid of 2k, didn't they. They didn't have to make the deal. Sure they would've lost the license, but it that an excuse to break the law ? Also, hasn't EA admitted to lobbying for the exclusive deal for years before they actually got it ?

It takes two to tango, and why can't the NFL be sued ? Are they not currently involved in a lawsuit with American Needle because of their exclusive license ?
Eliminating competition is illegal no matter how a company (unless they buy out the competitor) does it.[/quote]
EA didn't break the law by bidding on a license from the NFL which was offered to anyone who wanted to bid on it. Take Two also put a bid in and lost. That's called just getting beat in business. It's not unreasonable or unrealistic for any company to inquire about an exclusive license, Take Two would have been inquiring about the possibility as well.

What you are failing to understand is A)The basis of the case B)The background behind how EA got the license and C)The nature of anti-trust laws. I've outlined all of these things and why the case is not a good one from an anti-trust standpoint in my blog -- it's just not a good case. As I'll say there in a bit, the basis of any anti-trust case is that you can prove harm has been done to the consumer -- which isn't as easy as it sounds. You and other people are assuming the law is easy and that since you feel wronged then it's obviously a open and shut case.

The reason why most anti-trust suits fail, class action or not, is because to prove material harm has been done to the customer requires building a case which involves an entity working to completely take over a market of consumers which have then been materially harmed. From the text of the suit, the case the Plantiffs are pursuing is not good at all. Read my blog for more info, but until then I'd recommend you do a bit more research into anti-trust law and not defend a point you really don't have much of an idea about.

Sure you may think you do, and sure you may think you've been wronged....but quit finding facts and trying to make them fit your opinion. That's not how you build a logical case.

[Critical Kills]

No, that is how capitalism works, companies do their best to put out a product, maximize profits and follow the rules. As long as they are doing all three of those things then putting competition out of business is the fastest way to accomplish maximizing profits. There was nothing done here by EA nor the NFL to break any rules so there should be no issue with them attempting to maximize their profit margin.

It's not EA's fault because they were at the mercy of the NFL. If they had declined to accept the NFL's offer of exclusivity they would have seen it go to another company and thus impact their company's bottom line significantly. EA put forth the only option that was available to them, offer the necessary money to secure the exclusive agreement. If they had not then 2K would have gotten the contract and I seriously doubt so many folks would be here wanting 2K to be on the bad end of this lawsuit.

The NFL cannot, nor should not be sued, because they have the right to sell their exclusive product to all companies or one company, as they see fit. As I stated before, they cannot be sued based upon them holding some sort of monopoly on their product considering it's not a product or service that is something that is critical to the public welfare (such as wood, water, coal, natural gas, etc). Take the NFL Sunday Ticket for example, the NFL and DirecTV could raise the price of that to $3,000 per year if they wanted and there's not a damned thing anyone could do about it. If you don't want it then don't pay it. It's the NFL's product and they should be able to manage (or mismanage) it any way they see fit.

[LiquorLogic]

Quote: Originally Posted by SmashMan

Why not? The entire suit depends on the assumption that 2K would've strayed from this "typical" pricing for the foreseeable future. 2K lowered all their games for their 2K5 versions. Both MLB and NBA experienced price increases in subsequent years. While we obviously don't know because of the exclusivity deal, 2K's behavior with their other budget-priced sports titles suggests that their NFL game's price would've increased. 2K5's price point was a one-year anomaly, and shouldn't be used as the base line for setting prices. And thus begs the question...why would the $30 price of the 2005 year become the new standard pricing for Madden games?

Again, publishers aren't entitled to a certain price point. The courts couldn't care less about "standard" pricing. Whether 2k6 would've have sold for $20, $30, $40, or $50 dollars the following year are all assumptions. This case is about facts. The fact remains that EA lowered the price of Madden to compete, got rid of the competition, and then returned Madden to it's original price.

[LiquorLogic]

Quote: Originally Posted by ODogg

No, that is how capitalism works, companies do their best to put out a product, maximize profits and follow the rules. As long as they are doing all three of those things then putting competition out of business is the fastest way to accomplish maximizing profits. There was nothing done here by EA nor the NFL to break any rules so there should be no issue with them attempting to maximize their profit margin. It's not EA's fault because they were at the mercy of the NFL. If they had declined to accept the NFL's offer of exclusivity they would have seen it go to another company and thus impact their company's bottom line significantly. EA put forth the only option that was available to them, offer the necessary money to secure the exclusive agreement. If they had not then 2K would have gotten the contract and I seriously doubt so many folks would be here wanting 2K to be on the bad end of this lawsuit. The NFL cannot, nor should not be sued, because they have the right to sell their exclusive product to all companies or one company, as they see fit. As I stated before, they cannot be sued based upon them holding some sort of monopoly on their product considering it's not a product or service that is something that is critical to the public welfare (such as wood, water, coal, natural gas, etc). Take the NFL Sunday Ticket for example, the NFL and DirecTV could raise the price of that to $3,000 per year if they wanted and there's not a damned thing anyone could do about it. If you don't want it then don't pay it. It's the NFL's product and they should be able to manage (or mismanage) it any way they see fit.

You put competition out of business, legally, by offering a better product, or a cheaper product of the same quality. You don't make a deal that prevents you competitor competing altogether. Also, in case you haven't heard, the SCOTUS doesn't consider the NFL a single-entity. Single entities can decide to partner up with one company exclusively, but multiple entities, which the NFL is, can't conspire to exclude a competitor from the market. DirectTV is one company;DirectTV, to my knowledge, is not comprised of 32 separate companies.

[Critical Kills]

You're argument would make sense if EA made the deal themselves but they didn't, they made it with the NFL who owns the product to sell to whomever they desire. In this case they chose ONE company so that's their call, not EA's.

Oh and neither is EA 32 separate companies.