Yeah, well that's their prerogative, and you buying it is yours. I don't see how a lawsuit factors into this at all.gigastar said:I do see what you mean there but its harder to say its worth it for the sucession of NFL games. I doubt EA Sports puts in much effort to actually developing them. Controls are always the same, innovation is to them what a cheeseburger is to a lactose intolerant hindu, and really every time i compare this years and last years games i cant help wondering if they didnt just reskin the character models then change around the playable rooster names.Woodsey said:If people buy the bloody things then that's up to them, and they cost the same as other games anyway.
I probably should have mentioned this, but i wouldnt even buy anything from EA Sports to use as overkill sci-fi style coasters. I have CoD for that.Woodsey said:Yeah, well that's their prerogative, and you buying it is yours. I don't see how a lawsuit factors into this at all.gigastar said:I do see what you mean there but its harder to say its worth it for the sucession of NFL games. I doubt EA Sports puts in much effort to actually developing them. Controls are always the same, innovation is to them what a cheeseburger is to a lactose intolerant hindu, and really every time i compare this years and last years games i cant help wondering if they didnt just reskin the character models then change around the playable rooster names.Woodsey said:If people buy the bloody things then that's up to them, and they cost the same as other games anyway.
It must be now with all the companies getting sued over it.AT God said:I must be maliformed because I thought owning a monopoly was good, and not just because you can buy hotels.
Is having a monopoly on a product illegal?
Not directly apparently but yes if the organization resource to unfair practices. It can also be a reason for big lawsuits, as microsoft knows very well.AT God said:I must be maliformed because I thought owning a monopoly was good, and not just because you can buy hotels.
Is having a monopoly on a product illegal?
The lawsuit is that due to the exclusivity contract, nobody else was allowed to develop a competing game, one which might have forced EA to actually innovate in order to stay competitive. Having to pay $50-$60 for what is essentially the same exact game that was released 6 years ago, but without having to spend much in development in the process, is basically getting screwed by monopolistic behavior. If 2K weren't locked out of developing a competing Football game, imagine how much better both it and Madden would be if they actually had to compete with features, along with having the updated roster.Woodsey said:Yeah, well that's their prerogative, and you buying it is yours. I don't see how a lawsuit factors into this at all.gigastar said:I do see what you mean there but its harder to say its worth it for the sucession of NFL games. I doubt EA Sports puts in much effort to actually developing them. Controls are always the same, innovation is to them what a cheeseburger is to a lactose intolerant hindu, and really every time i compare this years and last years games i cant help wondering if they didnt just reskin the character models then change around the playable rooster names.Woodsey said:If people buy the bloody things then that's up to them, and they cost the same as other games anyway.
Yay for being part of a lawsuit! I wonder how much we would get? The last NFL-related monopoly charge won the plaintiffs...1$. You wanna split that?scotth266 said:Oh goody, I'm part of a class action lawsuit, and might therefore earn $5 when the case is won, if it is at all. Which it probably won't.
In the US it is. And EA's the only one producing Football games. There was a time when 2K was making Football games. Vastly superior games at that, but then EA bought all right to the brand and all that.AT God said:I must be maliformed because I thought owning a monopoly was good, and not just because you can buy hotels.
Is having a monopoly on a product illegal?