Gamers sue EA for "Anti-competitive practices"

[Chickenwarlord]

Seriously, what was the last creative sports game you bought people?

If your answer isn't a game that was on the NES, then I applaud you for not taking the beaten path.

Sports games will be sports games.

[Bigfoot]

Seriously, what was the last creative sports game you bought people?

If your answer isn't a game that was on the NES, then I applaud you for not taking the beaten path.

Sports games will be sports games.

Well, there's stuff like Mario Strikers and Toadstool Tour, but I'm sure you mean sports game like NFL, MLB, etc.

I miss sports games that were wacky like NBA Jam, NFL Blitz, Wayne Gretzky's Hockey on the N64 where the net catches on fire and you can send the goalie through the net.

Good times.

[Bahamut]

Seriously, what was the last creative sports game you bought people?

If your answer isn't a game that was on the NES, then I applaud you for not taking the beaten path.

Sports games will be sports games.

Top Spin 2...perhaps I suck, but that's one hard game

[Poke'G]

I miss sports games that were wacky like NBA Jam, NFL Blitz, Wayne Gretzky's Hockey on the N64 where the net catches on fire and you can send the goalie through the net.

Good times.

BOOMSHAKALAKA!

Midway knew the right way to do sports. Good times indeed.

[XZero]

I don't like Madden, though then again I don't like football, so it's not unexpected. As a law student, I'm honestly baffled as to how this works. How do consumers have legal standing? EA did nothing wrong in a legal sense. Something was legally available for purchase, they bought it. EA, as a corporation, has every right to act in whatever way they choose to act, assuming it is reasonable. Charging $50-$60 for a game every year it comes out is not so far removed from any other game. Tony Hawk games, for instance, do the exact same thing.

Standing is created by the plaintiff suffering a harm. Monopolizing a license (which by definition is how buying exclusivity rights works) does not constitute tortious behavior. No one is forcing these plaintiffs to purchase that game every year. The plaintiffs are not compelled to purchase the game; they are even less compelled to get it when the price is at its highest. This is a disgusting abuse of the lawsuit system in America, and I would thoroughly hope that EA wins out in the end, not even settling such a ridiculous claim.

Now there is some good that could come out of this. If the plaintiffs happen to win (which they probably won't), it could create a precedent upon which customers could sue for excessively high and noncompetitive prices, as in the gasoline market where everyone rips you off. Of course, this won't happen any more than them winning their suit. I can't see any court taking their case seriously.

[Wiesty]

Im actually glad. NFL 2K5 was the shiznit, and then EA bought the rights to NFL games, and since, they made absolute shit. All their games are always the same with hardly any new features and subpar graphics. This is because they have no competition, so they dont give a rats ass.

[Sinewav]

Seriously, what was the last creative sports game you bought people?

If your answer isn't a game that was on the NES, then I applaud you for not taking the beaten path.

Sports games will be sports games.

Wii Sports.

[Chickenwarlord]

Wii Sports.

Wii Sports is a rehash of many other 'single unit' TV setups from the mid 90's. The only exception is boxing.

[PassivePretentiousness]

saying that EA is in trouble with the law because it is requesting approval from the department of justice to acquire take-two is beyond ridiculous. companies willingly request approval because it's much easier than facing a challenge to the acquisition. It's common place for companies that have something like 15% of the market to request such approval. it means literally nothing, and far, far from even suggesting that they will soon become a target of the government.

Regarding the question of predatory pricing, it's slightly less ridiculous, but still, well, ridiculous. It is very hard to prove normally, and not really attempted by the prosecution ordinarily. To get it to stand up in court, you need to prove that EA is selling the games below invoice (in retail) or marginal cost, which means that you would need to prove that it costs more than $20 to produce one additional game. Those costs would be only the cost of making the physical game more or less. The reason why this is so strict is because, although there are clearly other costs involved in making the game, you really can't prove what is the true cost of producing each game by EA (the average total cost) in the real world. If they could disentangle it, this would be a landmark case to economists.

My knowledge is more along the lines of criminal cases and charges brought on by the DOJ, not civil cases, so I'm probably overstating this a little. Still while the requirement of confidence that the defendant has done something wrong drop from 99.999% sure to 99.5% sure, I can't imagine that they can establish that the average total cost for EA is more than $20. If they can't do that, what EA has done legally isn't monopolization. It's competition.