Electronic Arts (EA) sued for $1 billion

[Jenni Porshakin]

That's billion with a B

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6285811.html


The plaintiffs are asking for restitution and damages for those who purchased an Electronic Arts football game since August of 2005, disgorgement of all profits made as a result of anticompetitive actions, and that the infringing agreements be declared null and void.

[Reksanden]

Ouch. MEGA ouch.

[Ezodagrom]

First Activision trying to get $400 million from EA (http://www.gamespot.com/news/6285761.html) and now this. o_o

[Zarode]

And if this goes through, bye-bye Bioware and TOR. They won't have enough money to finish the project now.

[Blitzkommando]

Had this happened five years ago I likely would have said, "Good riddance." However, at this point I think Activision is a far worse blight on the industry than EA was. EA has actually been allowing developers to develop some true gems (Dead Space, Mass Effect) while Activision has just been awful. Ubisoft can also stuff it for all I care.

[MetaZedlen]

Just a bunch of "little kids" crying over who wants the toy...

You'd thinkat this point in time people would just learn how to grow the fuck up.

[Shark11]

I don't see on the link where it says anything about it being 1 billion... or any set amount.

[Monochrome]

Maybe I completely missed the point...

Now, so the lawsuit was brought by 2 gamers claiming that the prices on MADDEN NFL football games were artificially high.. NFL is a private organization, right? You can still make a football game, just not officially licensed with the NFL. So how is this anti-competitive?

This would be like suing Nintendo because Sony doesn't get to make Mario games.

[McLaughlin]

Maybe I completely missed the point...

Now, so the lawsuit was brought by 2 gamers claiming that the prices on MADDEN NFL football games were artificially high.. NFL is a private organization, right? You can still make a football game, just not officially licensed with the NFL. So how is this anti-competitive?

This would be like suing Nintendo because Sony doesn't get to make Mario games.

If at one point Sony did make Mario games and after attaining exclusive rights to that IP Nintendo doubled the price of Mario games then maybe.

That said, if this lawsuit is successful, can I sue all major retailers for charging me ten bucks more for a game than they do in the States while our currency is at parity?

[Shark11]

Maybe I completely missed the point...

Now, so the lawsuit was brought by 2 gamers claiming that the prices on MADDEN NFL football games were artificially high.. NFL is a private organization, right? You can still make a football game, just not officially licensed with the NFL. So how is this anti-competitive?

This would be like suing Nintendo because Sony doesn't get to make Mario games.

It is because, EA have a monopoly on the market. You may remember EA refused to make games for the Sega Dreamcast. Because American Football games were such a big demand Sega used to own a developer called Visual Concepts each year Sega would make the 2K series for the Dreamcast to substitute the lack of EAs Madden.

When the Dreamcast died and Sega went multiplatform, Segas 2K sports and EAs madden went head to head and EA didn’t like the competition. Then one year Sega/VC's games were sold cheaply as a strategy to gain sales and it worked very well.

The next year EA made a deal with the NFL so that they could have exclusive rights to use the NFL license... This pretty much killed the momentum of the 2K series. Sega sold the developers Visual Concepts to TakeTwo for a very small amount of money becuase the suddenly became kind of worthless.

TakeTwo continued to make 2K sports games and even renamed their other non sports games into 2k games... But with out the use of the NFL license they'd never be able to compete on the American Football series.

Now that EA has the monopoly and so there is no real competition they have started to hike up the price of the games knowing they can sell them for extortionate prices.

That is where the law suit comes in.

Frankly I hope EA loses.

[Kent]

That's billion with a B

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6285811.html
So... Where'd this "billion" figure come from?

[Split]

So... Where'd this "billion" figure come from?Yeah I'm pretty sure that said "million" with an M and 1 billion was a completely made-up, sensationalized figure. Could be wrong, though.

[BIG OLAF]

I did a CTRL+F for the word "billion" on the article page, and only got one result, which was for a link to Black Ops sales figures. Soooo...

[Akaimizu]

This is old news that should've been resolved back when the NFL license exclusitivity deal happened in the first place. Gamers knew, from the get go, and complained about this being a monopoly. EA even did a press-release saying they don't plan to "Phone company" the NFL games. Still, everybody knew what they were doing, and so did the NFL. Technically, the NFL should never have made that deal in the first place. They should've known it was a wrong move, but the scrooges in there only saw "short term" money coming from EA. Thus the ignorance of so many companies these days, they go for the short sale and not for the long term profits anymore. Customer satisfaction in a more competitive market goes a long way, especially when all the competition pays you. Yes, you can get your money and keep your soul. But I think there's a disconnect somewhere in that communication.

[Monochrome]

So it seems I did miss the point.. :wacko:

Isn't this something that was obvious from the get-go then??

"hurr me am gonna buy NFL rights and only me make NFL game and make lots money no one else, but is not monopoly -- no, me swear!!"

[KodiaX987]

Who are the real dumbasses in this affair? The people who marketed the games at a higher price or the fish who willingly pulled their pants down, bent over and bought the games anyway?

This will never hold together. EA doesn't even need a cement case to protect itself. Sue them for securing the exclusive deal in an attempt to kill off competition? Yeah, that could've worked. But sue them because their games are too expensive? If something is too expensive, you don't sue them. You just don't buy the fucking thing. It should be common sense to most but it looks like there's still a clinically insane amount of backwater welfare dumbshits who can't get enough of their sports games and are throwing a prissy fit because all of a sudden they realize they ran out of cash buying the same game nine years in a row.

[Kion]

There are two lawsuits. The one mentioned above is two players suing the company for being a monopoly.
[spoiler-box]
source: gamespot (http://www.gamespot.com/news/6192409.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=newstop&tag=newstop;title;2)
Two gamers are suing Electronic Arts for monopolizing the market on football video games.

The class-action lawsuit, launched by two gamers in Washington, DC, and California last week, alleges that EA is engaging in "blatantly anticompetitive conduct" by raising the price of its football game offerings after securing key licensing deals.

The suit points to EA's decision to pump up the price of its Madden series (pictured) after it signed deals with the NFL, NCAA, and the Arena Football League, following Take-Two's exit from the genre.

It also decries EA's attempted takeover of Take-Two, alleging that it would "remove one of the few companies with the ability and expertise to compete in the market for interactive football software."

The plaintiffs are requesting damages for anyone who purchased an EA football title since August 2005, return of all profits stemming from anticompetitive behavior, and related agreements declared null and void.

EA has not commented on the litigation.[/spoiler-box]

The other is retired NFL players suing EA for using their likeness in historical teams with out giving proper compensation.

[spoiler-box]source:ign (http://ps3.ign.com/articles/110/1109832p1.html)

A class action lawsuit consisting of approximately 6,000 retired National Football League players has been filed against Electronic Arts for the unlawful use the players' likenesses in Madden NFL 09's historic teams.

The suit alleges Electronic Arts "knowingly and intentionally" used the retired players' likenesses in such a way to avoid having to pay licensing fees. Plaintiff and former NFL running back Tony Davis contends EA misappropriated the retired players by using their exact player stats and positions from when they were active in the league, including height and weight, but would remove their names and change their uniform numbers.

"The only significant detail that EA changes from the real-life retired NFL players is their jersey number," the suit says. "Despite EA's 'scrambling' of the retired NFL players' numbers, the games are designed so that consumers of the Madden NFL video game franchise will have no difficulty identifying who the 'historic' players are."

The suit also says that despite not including the players' names and original uniform numbers in Madden NFL 09, users can still go in and edit the roster to include them.

The class seeks punitive damages for deprivation and violation of publicity rights

An EA representative told IGN the company does not comment on pending litigation.
[/spoiler-box]

[Roger Triton]

EA is a god ---- slavepit of a company to work for.
About 2-3 years ago (maybe more?) there was a story of how some (future laid off employees LOLz) had been overworked 60-80 hours to finish a project. They were getting paid regular hours, because their contract locked them into salary only. I think that's how it went. Anywayz, the blood sucking cockroaches @EA then laid them off after the project was over.

Hire employee.
Run health & social life into ground.
Finish project.
FIRE!
rinse and repeat.

For all those who complain about SEGA, atleast they respect their employees. EA does not. I have no love for a bunch of parasites, corporate parasites, like EA.

Yeah. EA needs to suck my ----- and cease to exist as a company. Immediately.


This is old news that should've been resolved back when the NFL license exclusitivity deal happened in the first place. Gamers knew, from the get go, and complained about this being a monopoly. EA even did a press-release saying they don't plan to "Phone company" the NFL games. Still, everybody knew what they were doing, and so did the NFL. Technically, the NFL should never have made that deal in the first place. They should've known it was a wrong move, but the scrooges in there only saw "short term" money coming from EA. Thus the ignorance of so many companies these days, they go for the short sale and not for the long term profits anymore. Customer satisfaction in a more competitive market goes a long way, especially when all the competition pays you. Yes, you can get your money and keep your soul. But I think there's a disconnect somewhere in that communication.

The lawsuit was initiated in 2008. I assume that it took a good bit of time for the plaintiffs to decide what to do before then. Also, most attorney will not go about suing a company without giving them a heads up. it's not like BAM HERE LAWSUIT LOLz and then the defending company (EA) has to respond. Most litigation was in process for some time before it goes public. Maybe this all did start right about the time EA got the exclusive license, then crawled to 2008? OK that's a big assumption but like I said, it's legal stuff & nobody here is an attorney!

[HAYABUSA-FMW-]

EA LOLz
http://social.bioware.com/uploads_user/174000/173070/22140.jpg
[spoiler-box]http://screenshot.xfire.com/s/104105175-4.jpg[/spoiler-box]

I wish this was Gamefaqs so you can't abuse every formatting tool possible and all of that could be much more easily skimmed over.

-

Also wish there isn't negative connotation associated with the plaintiffs as "gamers" Madden or otherwise, that doesn't denounce what they're trying to do. Can't be a regular person, or a regular person who plays games. Has to add that descriptor of "gamer."




The other is retired NFL players suing EA for using their likeness in historical teams with out giving proper compensation.

[spoiler-box]source:ign (http://ps3.ign.com/articles/110/1109832p1.html)

The class seeks punitive damages for deprivation and violation of publicity rights

An EA representative told IGN the company does not comment on pending litigation.
[/spoiler-box]
Hope that one goes through considering the NFL doesn't really take care of their past rosters of retired players, greats or otherwise. this is a drop in the bucket in their annual profits, really.

Same sorta thing for the NCAA and its monopoly, while the student athletes are exploited the same way for those games yet never see a dime. Its not just the ones who weren't golden lambs either, a player with a life and business years away from the game, doing fine for himself - one of the O'Bannon brothers I believe it was (read in an older Dave Zirin SLAM magazine article), is pushing for what's right, to the many many other players out there as well. Financial situation be damned, as the NCAA profits everywhere from their on court blood, sweat, and tears.

[McLaughlin]

I think that was the first Hayabusa post I've ever only had to read through once.

[Randomness]

And if this goes through, bye-bye Bioware and TOR. They won't have enough money to finish the project now.

Why would EA pull the plug on a game that's practically guaranteed to sell well?

I mean, when was the last time a BioWare game did badly?

[Outrider]

Why would EA pull the plug on a game that's practically guaranteed to sell well?

I mean, when was the last time a BioWare game did badly?

Possibly Sonic: Dark Brotherhood?

[Akaimizu]

While I'm pretty sure nothing will happen with Bioware now, it isn't unheard of for a development company to get the boot right after releasing one of the best grossing (or best quality) games for them. Lest we forget folks like Looking Glass Studios during a time when Eidos only produced crap outside of what they did. So what do you do? You let go your best developers and produce stuff like Tomb Raider Angel of Darkness. *ahem*