Madden NFL 11 News Post

Judge Certifies Class-Action Football Game Pricing Lawsuit Against EA

09:48 PM - December 22, 2010 by Steve_OS

Gamasutra has some new info on the lawsuit.

Quote:


	"A U.S. district judge has certified a class-action anti-trust lawsuit against Electronic Arts that alleges the company illegally inflated prices for its football titles after attaining exclusive rights to league licenses. In a 67-page complaint [PDF], the legal team specifically cites the 2004 pricing battle between Sega and Take-Two's NFL2K5, which retailed for just $19.95, and EA's Madden NFL 2005, which was lowered from a $49.95 asking price to $29.95 in November of that year. A month after this price decrease, EA signed its exclusive licensing deal with the NFL, following with similar deals for the NCAA and Arena Football leagues in later months. The next year's Madden NFL 2006 faced no competition in the football game market at its usual $49.95 price point."

Gamespot chimes in as well.

Quote:


	"We believe EA forced consumers to pay an artificial premium on Madden NFL video games" Berman continued. "We intend to prove that EA could inflate prices on their sports titles because these exclusive licenses restrained trade and competition for interactive sports software."

What do you think happens, out of all this?

Game: Madden NFL 11Reader Score: 6/10 - Vote Now
Platform: PS3 / Xbox 360Votes for game: 96 - View All

Madden NFL 11 Videos

Member Comments

# 61 youALREADYknow @ 12/23/10 06:06 PM

How is this even generating this much debate?

Until the date that a legitimate antitrust lawsuit is made, this is all nonsense. 2K Sports should have grown a sack and went for the gusto a long time ago. The suit would probably have gained some traction by now.

# 62 TajDeni @ 12/23/10 06:11 PM

Im not a lawyer so i dont pretend to know if they case has a real chance of succeeding or not....

but i do know guarilla strong arm tactics when i see it...And EA strong-arm the comp by playing a mean game of big bank takes little bank

can someone verify or disprove this claim....didnt madden initally drop at standard price and then change its price later....or didnt 2k drop like a week early or something like that...

# 63 khaliib @ 12/23/10 10:27 PM

What is funny, is that this is exactly what happened within a similiar case I was involved in. A group of "Non-Lawyers" were locked in a room to decide the case according to the information presented to them during the trial. And there were some who always spoke down to other jurors understanding because their concluding perspective(s) about the case differed. The case lingered a very long time because the focus shifted to an "I'm right and you're wrong" atmosphere (did I mention none were lawyers!!!).

If this case goes to trial, there "Will" be an asumption factor (from personal experience) because a jurors will not look at the claim/counter-claims from a black and white letter of the law viewpoint, but from what it looks like on the surface to them (key word "Surface").

If the claimant list is very large (the reason it's stil open) the "Perception" to a jury would not bode well for EA.

Although these cases are difficult to prove, as some have noted. The possibility of a loss and the damages that could be awarded based off of the concluding "Perception" of the jury, no matter how many prior cases were not successful, is not a place any company wants to be in.

Again, the fact the a Judge certified the claim instead of throwing in out, opens the doors of "Possible", which would allow them to present the "Perception" to the understanding of a group of regular folk. The biggest hurdle for their claim has been cleared.

BTW, I am not an attorney and have zero trial experience (participated though) in AntiTrust Law, so I don't have grounds to say you're perspetive is right or wrong.

Any good lawyer would tell you that no case, even if the facts are on your side, is a definite win when argued before a jury in a Court of Law.
Only a foolish attorney would promise such a thing!!!

It would be interesting to know were these former Football Game Developers stood on this claim.
989 Studios
Acclaim

# 64 Tbo24 @ 12/24/10 01:54 AM

I know that Madden is $60 like every other game, but don't they charge you for alot of the game content? Not being able to buy used copies, because of the whole paying for online play issue was kind of a bummer. Don't they charge for the Madden Moments too? Im not 'siding' with anyone, but a $60 game that charges for a majority of game content, can add up.

EDIT: I don't think thats part of the argument though. Sorry for babbling about something I know nothing about, lol.

# 65 Kaanyr Vhok @ 12/24/10 04:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrant8RDFL


	What your forgetting is that the NFL ask for bidders to own the rights for the NFL license. Thats a huge piece of information. EA did not go to them. The NFL made it clear. You want to make a football game then you have to pay us!!! The NFL does this with pretty much everything. Satellite TV anyone??? Hats??? Jerseys???

Yes EA did go to them.
I have most posted a couple links in the past. A rep for EA admitted to that they tried to get the license several times and were turned down. So yes the NFL did offer it but only after turning EA down several times.

# 66 zav @ 12/24/10 04:49 AM

anyone who knows anything about law knows that they dont intend to win this case. they intend to settle with EA. The case isnt strong but its viable which is always a dead giveaway for an upcoming settlement.

oh a much stronger case would be to try and nab them for monopolizing. Itd be tough but i think that would would win in court. Also you can go after the NFL as a trust(already done and won for hats) but apply it to madden sales essentially making it so that each team would be able to choose if they wanted to sign off their rights to madden or 2k or whatever comes up

edit: the fact that the game cost 60 and every other game does as well isnt the point. The point is that there is no competition which allows them to price the game freely. Because EA eliminated the competition by choice then the market is artificial. A good lawyer could win this easily but in all likelihood its going to settle which is why im getting in on this right now.... if it settles for a few mil and 10k people join as plaintiffs... we might all get a lil somethin

# 67 JaymeeAwesome @ 12/24/10 09:24 AM

I urge anyone who does not agree with this class action to not join into it. The outcome will not breed competition, it'll only hit the financial backing of the only NFL game in town. It's only up to tue NFL to allow competition, not EA. If any of you want a better football video game for the years to come, please don't join this suit. It'll only hurt us, the gamers, for the next few years.

# 68 SmashMan @ 12/24/10 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zav


	edit: the fact that the game cost 60 and every other game does as well isnt the point. The point is that there is no competition which allows them to price the game freely.

I wouldn't just dismiss that (other games' prices) as so many others are. The fact is, there is a generally agreed-upon "typical" price for new video games. Last gen it was $50, this gen is $60. There aren't separate pricing models for every genre of game. You (the general you, not specific) could argue that there shouldn't be a "typical" price, but there is.

I don't see how you can look at previous games (2004 and prior) and games after exclusivity (2006 and later) and prove that 2005 wasn't an anomaly. (You can infer it, but inferring is not proving.) Yes, EA lowered their price to compete against a lower-priced alternative. Yes, EA's price went back to normal after that alternative ceased to exist the following year; but I'd argue they did so to return to their usual pricing scheme. They didn't charge any more than they previously did (2004 and prior), which again seems to show that 2005 was an anomaly.

# 69 moylan1234 @ 12/24/10 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tbo24


	EDIT: I don't think thats part of the argument though. Sorry for babbling about something I know nothing about, lol.

don't be sorry about that. If no one babbled about things they don't know about then places like OS wouldn't exist!

# 70 Kaanyr Vhok @ 12/24/10 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmashMan


	I wouldn't just dismiss that (other games' prices) as so many others are. The fact is, there is a generally agreed-upon "typical" price for new video games. Last gen it was $50, this gen is $60. There aren't separate pricing models for every genre of game. You (the general you, not specific) could argue that there shouldn't be a "typical" price, but there is. I don't see how you can look at previous games (2004 and prior) and games after exclusivity (2006 and later) and prove that 2005 wasn't an anomaly. (You can infer it, but inferring is not proving.) Yes, EA lowered their price to compete against a lower-priced alternative. Yes, EA's price went back to normal after that alternative ceased to exist the following year; but I'd argue they did so to return to their usual pricing scheme. They didn't charge any more than they previously did (2004 and prior), which again seems to show that 2005 was an anomaly.

Proving it was an anomaly is just as difficult as proving it was a trend mainly because of how well 2k5 sold. It even outsold Madden on the Xbox. It is reasonable to believe there was going to be at least a temporary price war.

# 71 SmashMan @ 12/24/10 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaanyr Vhok


	Proving it was an anomaly is just as difficult as proving it was a trend mainly because of how well 2k5 sold. It even outsold Madden on the Xbox. It is reasonable to believe there was going to be at least a temporary price war.

Yeah, there's no way of knowing whether 2005 was a one-off situation or the start of a new trend. All I can do is look at the preceding and following years and all I see is a game that was $50 both before and after 2005.

I have no doubt whatsoever that 2K would've priced their game below Madden, but I have serious doubts that they would've maintained the $20 price point. And for that all I can look at is their MLB and NBA titles; which both increased in price following a lower-priced 2K5. If they increased those, I'm only left to assume they would've also increased their NFL game. That's where I'm drawing my anomaly conclusion from.

I mean, this is all hypothetical stuff, and I have no legal knowledge whatsoever. It just makes for some mildly interesting discussion.

# 72 Kramer5150 @ 12/24/10 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaymee13


	It'll only hurt us, the gamers, for the next few years.

What in the heck would you call the last 6 installments?
I wouldn't say us "gamers" have benefited at ALL with exclusivity.

I know you're a big Madden supporter,and that's fine....but don't act like the Madden games up to this point have been "quality" titles,especially when compared to the other sports games available.

I'm not saying that this holds any water,BUT....ANY hope of exclusivity ending (imo) is the only way that us "gamers" will benefit.

I've all but given up on football video gaming,as I'm tired of hearing "next year" or "we didn't have time".

# 73 TracerBullet @ 12/24/10 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaanyr Vhok


	Yes EA did go to them. I have most posted a couple links in the past. A rep for EA admitted to that they tried to get the license several times and were turned down. So yes the NFL did offer it but only after turning EA down several times.

But the key point here is that the NFL turned them down. They then offered the license to everyone during the bidding process.

# 74 HealyMonster @ 12/24/10 04:58 PM

I think at the end of the day, all of us in here want there to be more than 1 NFL video game. Is there anyone in here that doesn't want this? And I mean that seriously, its not rhetorical. Those of us that dont have any legal experience/knowledge are pretty much standing here looking at the case "hoping" something breaks and it can lead to the exclusive license becoming a thing of the past. Those of you with legal experience are probably right with most of your stuff, but also need to realize that the majority of us are not trying to just see a case go to court, or see EA get "defeated", we just want more options, so most of the arguments are simply people trying to hold onto their hope as opposed to really win a legal argument.

Me personally, I just dont like Madden. I played it the last couple years, its just not my thing. I want there to be Madden forever. I dont want to see Madden fail or anything of that nature, I just want to play another game for a change so I am hopeful that this case can make that happen regardless of how realistic it is or not, its the only thing going on now that gives me any hope.

# 75 DivotMaker @ 12/24/10 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LiquorLogic


	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.

Sorry, but I do not see it that way at all. EA lowered their price WILLINGLY to compete with 2K. They did so understanding they would be losing money to maintain market share. Both companies had an NFL license then, but none of us know how much each company paid for their licenses, so we do not know how much the price war impacted each company.

EA did not eliminate 2K, the NFL did. When EA outbid 2K, the reported numbers for the agreement were STAGGERING leading many to question openly how EA could recoup their licensing investment over the term of the contract. Of course EA raised their prices back to pre-price war pricing for the simple fact that they had to start recouping their investment for the new exclusive license. The way some make it sound, you would think EA not only raised prices back to previous levels, but tacked on another $20 to the price. How anyone can fault EA for bringing the pricing back to accepted levels (in line with other sports games and video games) is beyond me. I hope this lawsuit dies a very quick and painful death.

# 76 DivotMaker @ 12/24/10 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaanyr Vhok


	Yes EA did go to them. I have most posted a couple links in the past. A rep for EA admitted to that they tried to get the license several times and were turned down. So yes the NFL did offer it but only after turning EA down several times.

No they didn't. An "EA Rep" is not Peter Moore. I spoke with him about this when I met him at Tiburon earlier this year and he told me that the NFL approached both 2K and EA at the same time.

# 77 Kramer5150 @ 12/24/10 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DivotMaker


	No they didn't. An "EA Rep" is not Peter Moore. I spoke with him about this when I met him at Tiburon earlier this year and he told me that the NFL approached both 2K and EA at the same time.

I suggest you do a google search. It's no secret that EA DID lobby for the exclusive license before it was "official",and at that time they were turned down.

While I understand it takes "2 to tango" and while some while site the argument of "why does it matter" who went to whom first...the fact still remains that EA DID approach the NFL about exclusive rights.

Peter Moore wasn't even involved with EA at the time of all this. He didn't go to EA till 2007,while EA had lobbied for exclusiveness as early as 2004 or so.

# 78 Critical Kills @ 12/24/10 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmashMan


	Yeah, there's no way of knowing whether 2005 was a one-off situation or the start of a new trend. All I can do is look at the preceding and following years and all I see is a game that was $50 both before and after 2005. I mean, this is all hypothetical stuff, and I have no legal knowledge whatsoever. It just makes for some mildly interesting discussion.

Seriously? No way to know if it was the start of a trend? Does anyone, even the most anti-EA fan, really think that football games were going to be $20 from here on out if not for the exclusive deal????

# 79 tabulaRasa @ 12/25/10 06:57 AM

Karma is a bitch huh?

monopoly sucks

# 80 SmashMan @ 12/25/10 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ODogg


	Seriously? No way to know if it was the start of a trend? Does anyone, even the most anti-EA fan, really think that football games were going to be $20 from here on out if not for the exclusive deal????

I don't think so, AT ALL, but I left it open-ended because we'll never know.

As I also said though, there seems to be very little argument here against EA if even 2K was going to (and it seems they were) raise their prices the following year.

« Previous 1 2 345 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next »

More Links

Judge Certifies Class-Action Football Game Pricing Lawsuit Against EA