Can you prove it? Do you know what the the actual profit margin is? How come they only dropped the price in 2004 and not any other year? How exactly was it proven that NFL games are worth only 70% of the standard game? Just because it was a 1 year discount which undersold the standard market price doesn't make it a standard. If the $20 price was so good how come 2k didn't continue the practice with it's other sports games? That's what'll kill the case since it shows that the lowered price didn't work.
EA pays boatload of money for the agreement. I think the argument that Madden has been able to charge higher prices because of these conditions is pretty clear. I'm guessing that the big question is whether this was an appropriate license, i.e: Is the NFL an entity which is allowed to limit its trademark? Certainly, may "entities" are allowed to control/limit their trademark. For example, a famous person doesn't have to put his trademark on the market, and he or she certainly doesn't have to tell to multiple bidders. I don't see a good argument for forcing the NFL to change how it handles its trademark. If anything, the problem comes from the NFL's de facto monopoly, by virtue of which it has all this power. But if Tiger Woods can sell his trademark/persona to only 1 game, and Jeopardy! can sell its trademark to only 1 game, then I don't see why the NFL is different.
Lol, come on. How would anyone that isn't a suit at EA know the profit margin? How can you continue a pricing strategy for a specific game when you aren't allowed to make it anymore? You point about using the price point for other game is irrelevant the argument you are in. The price wouldn't need to be established as a standard since EA went out of their way to make sure it didn't become the standard.
you don't need to know the specific profit margin to know that they have a profit margin, and the lower the selling price the lower the profit margin; that is all my argument is stating and is dependent on. the fact that you attempt to dispute that only further exemplifies how little you grasp in this entire argument. this is very embarrassing for you. it was proven that NFL games have only a 70% value when EA lowered their price to 70% the price of standard video games to be competitive. we aren't talking standard price, we are talking market value -- again this is as very simple difference that you don't get and your attempt to make the argument only further reveals how little you grasp the argument being made. how about you argue the actual scenario, not what you want it to be? and it has nothing to do with whether the $20 price was a good price and why they didn't do it with their other games, it has to do with the fact that to be competitive against Madden, 2K had to sell at a lower price. when they did they raised their sales, EA lost sales, and in response had to lower their own price. that's what competition does, and competition establishes market value. this is a fact, and what the suit is arguing. the lower price did work, as it boosted 2K's sales and caused EA to have to lower the price to compete. you just are apparently to f'ing stupid to grasp this, and thus the case. really, your arguments only continue to further reveal how little you grasp, not just in this case but how little ability you posses in general to grasp simple concepts and facts. this is truly dumbfounding; there is nothing complicated about this.
this is interesting point, you would assume a property owner has a right to license to who they see fit, and in doing so can create a market monopoly. but Reebok lost a monopoly lawsuit last year for NFL headwear on the claim that it allowed them to fix the price and overcharge consumers. but here is the trick -- did the NFL seek a sole licensee so they could fix the market price of their video games. the NFL certainly couldn't have been pleased when the premiere NFL game was only being sold at 70% the standard video game price because competition. this isn't good for the brand image. so what do they do in response? eliminate the competition so the price could be raised and consumers overcharged. I'm willing to bet the NFL is equally liable as EA. the problem is the price only got lowered in the first place because other companies couldn't compete with the Madden brand, so the strength of the Madden brand was the problem for the NFL. giving them the exclusive license only makes the matter worse.
Yep uh-uh you still haven't addressed the point that if the NFL game is only worth 70% then how come every other sports game is still at 100%. It doesn't set squat if it only happens once and never happens again. You fail to address the point about production cost and the profit margin which not everything gets sold with a positive margin. The PS3 for example was sold at a loss even when the price was at $499. Now since you nor I know the profit margin we wouldn't know if they intentionally lowered the price and was will to take a loss in order to gain market share. From what I could find Take Two also lowered the price on all the other sports games that year to $20 and then subsequently raised it back to normal price in 2005 which proves it was nothing more than an anomaly. I'll say it again since you seem to have 0 argument against this. If the $20 was good enough for their sports titles in 2004 then why didn't they lower the price in all of their other sports games from 2005 on? Why is MLB 2k11 and NBA 2k11 sold at $59.99 rather than $19.99 or even $29.99? Are you willing to state the the NFL license is somehow worth less than the NBA's, MLB's and the NHL's because that would be one reason why the NFL game is only worth 70% of a MLB/NHL/NBA title.
Because 2k doesn't have to. They can sell those games at those prices because they can compete with EA in those sports. Against Madden they couldn't compete with selling the game at $50 or $60. They had to lower their prices to compete with Madden. This worked. Madden in response, had to lower the price of their game. Their argument will be that EA purposely created a monopoly on all football games, eliminating 2k and other companies from putting a comparable game out at a lower price. Therefore, hurting the consumer. NBA and MLB have nothing to do with this. That is a different market and does nothing to the strengthen or lessen any argument regarding this lawsuit.
actually, if you grasped the dynamics of your own statement you would realize it has been answered -- what the value of other sports games are is separate from the value of the NFL games. the market determined a value of the NFL games. again, you don't grasp your own argument. Sony sold the PS3 at a price lower than the manufacturing cost; that's where they lost money. it is widely known it costs $1 to burn a cd or dvd and thus the manufacturing the cost of any game is a buck, so 2K didn't sell it at less than cost since it was sold for $20. I know you aren't bright enough to know this by your continually asinine arguments, but $1 is less than $20. I already addressed this and you didn't get it the first time-- it costs millions to develop a game and games aren't sold for millions so even Madden at $40 is sold at less than cost. as you saw above, your ridiculous manufacturing example actually disputes your position, and then you are only left with the development costs. and since no game costs millions to the consumer, every game is sold at less than development cost, and you simply choose to make a higher or lower profit margin per sale in recouping that cost. again, a painfully obvious fact that you clearly aren't smart enough to grasp and has now had to be explained to you twice, and I'm sure you still don't understand it. no, your assertion is simply irrelevant and continues to reveal how little you grasp the arguments of the case, hence why you are so confused and are confusing the issues. it has nothing to do with whether it is a good enough price, it has to do with the fact that the price existed and EA responded to that price. those are facts, and ignoring them doesn't change them. clearly the market for MLB games is different than NFL games, so whenever you want to address the real issue, which you clearly aren't capable of so I won't hold my breath you'll figure out what this case is about any time soon, we are all waiting. I can't believe someone so ignorant of the concept of a monopoly and how it relates to the market would actually attempt to discuss a case dependent on monopolizing the market and artificially fixing the price of a product after the market has determined a true price for it.
They kinda do have something to do with this because if the exclusivity deal didn't happen then NFL 2k6 most likely would of sold for $49.99 like the other games they produced which were $19.99 the previous year. They still had to compete with the other EA games so how come the $19.99 price didn't stay?
Your obviously missing the point but since all your doing is hurling insults it's no surprise you missed it. The point I was making was that the PS3 was selling at a loss along with potentially the 2k lineup in 2004, the method involved in producing the product has nothing to do with it. The game was sold the year before at $49.99 and probably would of been sold at $49.99 in 2005 since it most likely would of followed the pricing pattern of the other sports titles. So it's not exactly hard to theorize that they might of sold the game at a loss in order to gain a larger market share. As for this monopoly stuff, You do realize the NFL, NCAA or Arena are not the only forms of football right? Those are just popular brands, there's Canadian football, the UFL and various other outdoor and indoor leagues. APF 2k8 and Backbreaker are example of football games that came put without the NFL branding. The monopoly argument falls apart right there.
I really, really, hope the result of this is no more exclusive NFL license for Madden. EA faces competition in soccer (FIFA vs Pro Evolution) and not only do they still make a fortune but have continued to produce a great video game that you can tell was made with extensive attention to detail. Madden has definitely stagnated the past few years.
The one thing I don't get is why Jetblue seems to need to continually kill Wildthing with insults while he's just having a normal argument.
But you cant say because NBA 2k6 and MLB 2k6 were sold at 49.99, then NFL 2k6 would have been sold at that price. They will argue that to compete with MADDEN they had to lower the price, which forced Madden to lower their price. They didnt have to lower their price to compete with the shitty game that was NBA Live. Each market is different. I agree that because there have been other football games, like backbreaker and AFL , it is hard to say they monopolize the whole football market and this will probably lose their case. But Like I said before, it will have nothing to do with other sports video game markets.
selling at a loss means something very specific -- the cost to manufacture, not the cost to develop, since there is no guarantee your product will sell and recoup the entire cost. plenty of games sell at $49.99 and don't recoup their costs, did they sell at a loss at that price? by your asinine logic, yes, so the price of a game wouldn't dictate whether it sold at a loss or not at all. sorry, that's not how these things work. the suit isn't about football video games in general, it is about the specific licensed football games as it states, so again what you think are relevant points that support your position are actually irrelevant to the claim. the NFL football video game market is a specific market in itself, and isn't competing for sales with other sports. it isn't about sports games in general, hence why EA only lowered the price of Madden, or about other football games. this couldn't be any clearer. perhaps you should read up on the Supreme Courts position on the NFL creating sole licensees to eliminate competition. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2010/05/supreme-court-says-nfl-open-to-antitrust-lawsuit.html specifically: that sure seems like what EA and the NFL did in this regard. In the face of lowered prices due to competition, they eliminated the competition, thus possibly violating anti-trust laws and creating an unfair monopoly. that is what the case is about. I'm dumbfounded by the stupidity of his argument and his attempting to confuse the issue with irrelevant points.
Why can't I say it? The other sports games followed this pattern so it's not exactly out of the realm of possibility that NFL 2k6 wouldn't of done the same thing. They are in competition with EA in the other sports, not exactly sure why the NFL game would special treatment vs. the other ones. The second part sounds just like bias to me. Even if the other ones are crap they are still competing against each other. Beside if they did that they would be alienating their customer base of the other brands since one would get special treatment over the others. Which is why they made all of their sports games $19.99 rather than just NFL 2k5.
