EA Agrees to Settlement in Antitrust Suit

[samaugsch]

I have to agree that this was definitely an anti-competitive move and I am honestly surprised this went on as long as it did.

No matter what football game is objectively the best, whether it be the 2k games, Madden or Backbreaker, Madden will always have the consistent advantage of being able to sell the ability to play as your favorite teams. For many people, that's more than enough.

This is bad for the football game industry.

That's ok. I consider generic sports video games to be shit anyway.

 

[theultimateend]

Nobody Trusts EA anymore.

Unfortunately not trusting them does not make their games un-addictive. There will still be a demographic that snaps up EA games and from Microsoft's example, it's very hard to break a monopoly once it has been established.

It's basically why the idea of the "free market regulating itself." is total bullshit.\

I'm oversimplifying obviously.

 

[Akimoto]

Nobody Trusts EA anymore.

Unfortunately not trusting them does not make their games un-addictive. There will still be a demographic that snaps up EA games and from Microsoft's example, it's very hard to break a monopoly once it has been established.

It's not hard at all, it's just that nobody who could is going to try. Microsoft probably bought it's way out, but with EA nobody will even care. The people in charge of law don't even know what video games are.

I should explain that by demographic I meant the kids who should not be buying and playing the games, are I suspect the main target.

It's mostly personal experience, but the ratings do not stop anyone from restricting sales to minors, my younger brother has friends who play 18+ games. They are attracted to the idea of the immediate movie feel and hand-holding flow. My bro was impressed by the graphics mostly and the advertisement campaign of BF3 - it helped that he did not mind me explaining how it was linear, shallow and actually insulting of a gamers' intellect. Great MP play though.

Unless we find a way to teach people how to distinguish the basics of good games, EA and alike companies will get away with selling low quality products.

Off Topic: In fact Microsoft cheats at times. The Business 'N' of Vista was not supposed to be used in South East Asia but during my short time as a backend IT, it was being used.

 

[Akimoto]

Nobody Trusts EA anymore.

Unfortunately not trusting them does not make their games un-addictive. There will still be a demographic that snaps up EA games and from Microsoft's example, it's very hard to break a monopoly once it has been established.

It's basically why the idea of the "free market regulating itself." is total bullshit.\

I'm oversimplifying obviously.

Simple is good sometimes. The free market was based on the assumption that human beings are rational and pragmatic. Turned out to be untrue, but than again hindsight is 20/20.

Games don't have the kind of 'professionalism' or global impact that other markets do, so it's unlikely we see any form of regulation.

 

[Twilight_guy]

To bad you can't just sue your way into making sports game relevant. Oh, burned!

Well the story doesn't really interest me that much but it is interesting to see the idea of a monopoly applied to a genera of games. I wonder if other type of games licenses could also have such actions taken against them.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

Also, InB4 the "sport games, who cares!?!? they're just roster updates every year!!!" silly people who always appear

The problem is, it's still just football. The same game rehashed every year. Spice it up with cyborgs, robots or zero gravity.

Tippy called it

Yeah, but I had the idea of robots playing the game in a zero gravity environment.

 

[theultimateend]

Simple is good sometimes. The free market was based on the assumption that human beings are rational and pragmatic. Turned out to be untrue, but than again hindsight is 20/20.

Games don't have the kind of 'professionalism' or global impact that other markets do, so it's unlikely we see any form of regulation.

Well the nice thing about the gaming market is that when they fail miserably nobody will bail them out so they'll just die.

I hate to see folks unemployed but it would hopefully spur up new smaller companies.

I know EA's stocks aren't looking the greatest lately >_>.

I think the free market would work if you couldn't manipulate information or push out competition [some places don't really have an alternative to walmart for instance, at least not without a real long drive]. Basically any rant I'd go on would end up with just your simple couple sentences though, so I'll shut the ole trap .

Also, InB4 the "sport games, who cares!?!? they're just roster updates every year!!!" silly people who always appear

The problem is, it's still just football. The same game rehashed every year. Spice it up with cyborgs, robots or zero gravity.

Tippy called it

Yeah, but I had the idea of robots playing the game in a zero gravity environment.

I'm not the target audience but I'll admit I didn't notice the difference the last time I played 2 Madden titles that were a few years apart.

NOT saying there weren't a thousand upgrades, I just didn't notice any of them besides visuals and roster >_>.

So I think its more that people who don't 'get it' just don't notice.

 

[weirdee]

While the money itself is insignificant in recompensation, the enjoyment of taking money back from EA is well worth the cost, even though this train of logic makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Clearing the Eye]

If anyone feels the enjoyment of a game is diminished by the absence of certain names, they're a fool. Brand means nothing here. Utterly pointless.

 

[MrFalconfly]

If anyone feels the enjoyment of a game is diminished by the absence of certain names, they're a fool. Brand means nothing here. Utterly pointless.

Well then call me a fool.

I think that if say a racing game (like say Colin McRae Rally, F1 2011 or Race 07) doesn't feature the complete roster of cars/teams/drivers of a certain series then it's half-arsed (and me being a perfectionist twit about such things it does diminish my enjoyment. Sure I'm an Audi fan but I'd still want to try and drive the Peugeot 908 HDI FAP).

 

[Fasckira]

Im a huge fan of the NHL series but I dont give a monkeys if its got the latest up to date roster for each team with licensed player names and stuff - the first thing I do when I pick up an NHL game is recreate myself then play as myself in the Be a Pro mode, or create my own team and play with whatever players I can get/afford.

 

[Clearing the Eye]

If anyone feels the enjoyment of a game is diminished by the absence of certain names, they're a fool. Brand means nothing here. Utterly pointless.

Well then call me a fool.

I think that if say a racing game (like say Colin McRae Rally, F1 2011 or Race 07) doesn't feature the complete roster of cars/teams/drivers of a certain series then it's half-arsed (and me being a perfectionist twit about such things it does diminish my enjoyment. Sure I'm an Audi fan but I'd still want to try and drive the Peugeot 908 HDI FAP).

So they can make the same game (and they are the same games) but without a certain name on the car/shirt, it's not fun? The absence of some letters, ignoring the quality of the product, its gameplay and general feel, etc., ruins your ability to have fun? How... sad. I prefer to enjoy my time with things and not worry which brand they paid to have slapped over the box.

 

[WhiteTigerShiro]

I don't blame EA for this I blame gamers and Take-Two. EA did what you would expect from a business stance and gained exclusive rights. If I had a movie studio company and got the exclusive rights to make movies based off of Marvel Comics this wouldn't unusual and seen as a smart move. This is what EA did just in regards to football. I'm no fan of EA but there is no need to cast stones when they really didn't do anything wrong and for once did something smart.

Why is it the gamers and Take-Two's fault you may be asking. Simple gamers are at fault for being ignorant enough to not consider buying games outside of those leagues. If someone is a football fan then deep down football is what should matter. Not because they could play as a fictional version of a real team. Take-Two is at fault for not attempting this and making a truly notably superior game, without paying those big $ for the rights to develop and publish games based on a real league. That savings can instead be put into development funds and actually create a superior product. But no suing is somehow the answer.

With this logic I could start a development for a wrestling game and then turn around and sue THQ because they have a monopoly on the genre because they have exclusive rights to publish WWE games which at this time are the only real successful wrestling games today. Despite THQ really not being at any fault at all. Placing the blame on a rights holder to a franchise because the consumers are too ignorant to consider other options or competitors can't deliver a obvious better product is just idiotic.

Actually, EA did do something wrong. It's all in that second paragraph. After a very lackluster year of sales from their football game, Take-Two lowered the price of their NFL-dubbed football game to try and push more copies. In response, EA was forced to lower the price of their game to stay competitive. And that's fine, that's competition, that's what our market is based on. It's EA's next move that makes them look really shady.

So after the 2005 price drops, EA responded by signing the exclusive rights to have anything NFL-related in their football game. Should brand name matter? No, it really shouldn't, and regardless of whether or not it's the consumer's fault for brand name mattering, EA knows that it matters and chose to specifically exploit it. So with Take-Two unable to make another NFL game (sure they could make a football game, but fewer people would buy it purely because it doesn't look official), EA released their next football game at the full price.

In short, EA received some competition, was forced to respond to the competition by keeping their prices lower, then bought-up rights that would allow them to jack-up their price again. THAT is why they're in trouble. They specifically took away the competition's ability to make a competitive product (and again, regardless of who's fault it is that brand name matters, EA is still at fault for specifically exploiting that fact) and then showed-off their poker face by immediately jacking-up the price on their game.

I don't get it. They were sued for handling the business well and taking over the market?

No, they were sued for alleged anti-competitive actions. Monopolies are bad for markets. They lower competition, raise prices and discourage innovation. That's why we have commissions in place to ensure they don't occur, but they still do.

I'm not sure if EA's actions are completely anti-competitive. As Nuclear Shadow pointed out, it's perfectly possible to create a good football game without an official license. But it appears the suit had enough of a case that EA is willing to settle.

I would argue that they did do it specifically to be anti-competitive. The way that them getting the NFL rights corresponded to them jacking the price back up shows intent, in my eyes. As for Take-Two being able to make a perfectly good football game even if they can't use the NFL brand name, so it shouldn't have been a huge deal, see my previous reply. Take-Two could create THE football game to play, but it still won't sell when people see a perfectly legitimate NFL game sitting right next to it on the store shelves. As far as the average consumer can tell, it's an official title vs some cheap knock-off. Like when Disney releases Aladdin on DVD, then some animation studio you've never heard of decides that it's a good time to do their own cartoon based on the story. Sure some people buy the cheap knock-off, but most people figure "Yeah, it's cheaper, but there's probably a reason for that", and then buy the brand name title on the premise of "You get what you pay for".

 

[MrFalconfly]

If anyone feels the enjoyment of a game is diminished by the absence of certain names, they're a fool. Brand means nothing here. Utterly pointless.

Well then call me a fool.

I think that if say a racing game (like say Colin McRae Rally, F1 2011 or Race 07) doesn't feature the complete roster of cars/teams/drivers of a certain series then it's half-arsed (and me being a perfectionist twit about such things it does diminish my enjoyment. Sure I'm an Audi fan but I'd still want to try and drive the Peugeot 908 HDI FAP).

So they can make the same game (and they are the same games) but without a certain name on the car/shirt, it's not fun? The absence of some letters, ignoring the quality of the product, its gameplay and general feel, etc., ruins your ability to have fun? How... sad. I prefer to enjoy my time with things and not worry which brand they paid to have slapped over the box.

Well that is why I prefer motorsports games. It isn't the same. Cars are different (even Formula 1 which is pretty fixed when it comes to rules are subject to changes from yeah to yeah, just do a comparison between the '07 the '10 and the '12 cars).

 

[Clearing the Eye]

If anyone feels the enjoyment of a game is diminished by the absence of certain names, they're a fool. Brand means nothing here. Utterly pointless.

Well then call me a fool.

I think that if say a racing game (like say Colin McRae Rally, F1 2011 or Race 07) doesn't feature the complete roster of cars/teams/drivers of a certain series then it's half-arsed (and me being a perfectionist twit about such things it does diminish my enjoyment. Sure I'm an Audi fan but I'd still want to try and drive the Peugeot 908 HDI FAP).

So they can make the same game (and they are the same games) but without a certain name on the car/shirt, it's not fun? The absence of some letters, ignoring the quality of the product, its gameplay and general feel, etc., ruins your ability to have fun? How... sad. I prefer to enjoy my time with things and not worry which brand they paid to have slapped over the box.

Well that is why I prefer motorsports games. It isn't the same. Cars are different (even Formula 1 which is pretty fixed when it comes to rules are subject to changes from yeah to yeah, just do a comparison between the '07 the '10 and the '12 cars).

You missed the point entirely. If the cars are the exact same in Racing Game 2012 as they are in Big Brand Name Racing Game 2012, you should enjoy both equally. That you care so strongly about certain letters being on the box is inane.

 

[Atmos Duality]

I'm not sure if EA's actions are completely anti-competitive. As Nuclear Shadow pointed out, it's perfectly possible to create a good football game without an official license. But it appears the suit had enough of a case that EA is willing to settle.

I'm going out on a limb here, but knowing what I do about the demographics for football fans in the United States (being in the Green Bay/Bears DMZ-fanzone), a license is entirely required to even get noticed.

Brand recognition falls somewhere between Nationalism and Religion in terms of commitment.
(It's the only way to explain how there are still Cubs Fans here in Chicago.
*ducks hail of beer bottles and buckshot*)

 

[theultimateend]

Nobody Trusts EA anymore.

Unfortunately not trusting them does not make their games un-addictive. There will still be a demographic that snaps up EA games and from Microsoft's example, it's very hard to break a monopoly once it has been established.

It's basically why the idea of the "free market regulating itself." is total bullshit.\

I'm oversimplifying obviously.

Yea dam those people who buy stuff that they like and I dont. Why do they have to have things like personal taste and instead just be mindless slaves who only buy what I tell them.

I must not get what you are going off about. Because if you were hoping to sound clever or smart you really missed the mark by a mile.

Using psychology to manipulate people is far older than you or anyone you know. It's the entire basis behind cults and it is how some folks can convince other folks to kill themselves or to even die for them.

Acting like everything is a simple choice that is made by fully rational beings is just naive.

So painfully naive.

Then you are ignoring the malicious practices of businesses, namely what I was getting at. Once a business has enough money it can manipulate the market so that it is the only option. Whenever regulations are put in place to curb this people ***** about it hurting "the free market".

It can't work, it doesn't work, it never worked.

It's nice though, but its terribly flawed.

Anywho, I probably just wasted my time. Because either I misunderstood you and you already knew this OR you don't care to research anything beyond soundbites and "snark".

I don't blame EA for this I blame gamers and Take-Two. EA did what you would expect from a business stance and gained exclusive rights. If I had a movie studio company and got the exclusive rights to make movies based off of Marvel Comics this wouldn't unusual and seen as a smart move. This is what EA did just in regards to football. I'm no fan of EA but there is no need to cast stones when they really didn't do anything wrong and for once did something smart.

The reason a movie company would get exclusive rights for heroes is because the ENTIRE thing is intertwined.

If say Sony has control over Spiderman and some other company has control over Fantastic Four you've just knocked out dozens or even hundreds of comic stories you might want to do.

The reason they get exclusivity is because people don't play together. I don't see how this would be the same with the NFL.

Unless you got exclusive rights to a single team. Then I could see that being one person breaking the system

But yeah, there is a reason Spider-man wasn't in the Avengers and it had nothing to do with casting problems. It had to do with them not having ownership of movie rights.

Would be cool if movie companies weren't dicks to one another, I'd love to see intermingling. Though that might be dangerous, old school monopolies.