Nobody is saying that what EA did was wrong.  It actually WAS a smart move for their company as rdeegvainl stated.  But fuck EA.  Really.  When a company sign exclusive deals with sports brands, especially the NFL, it's that companies responsibility to come through with quality when you're now telling consumers that they can only play your game if they want NFL athletes and teams.  If you don't meet halfway with the consumer, then what you're doing is wrong and you've created a monopoly.  Back in 2005 NFL 2K5 came out and sold like 1.6 million copies (Don't quote me on the stats, I just know I'm close, if not right) when madden 05 came out and sold around 1.8 million copies.  2K5 sold their game for $20.00 and madden sold theirs for $49.99, as that was the max price for every game at that time.  The surge of 2K5 copies obviously rattled EA's cage, thus forcing them to lower their price by $20.00 until they got fed up and signed the deal with the NFL and raise the price back to $49.99, and then sold Madden 06 for $60.00. 

That................Is...................A...............Monopoly...............In.................The.............Making.

They were forced to lower thier price to sub-normal levels to compete with a nearly identical product.

No, whatever price they sell for constitutes the "normal" price. Examples being games that sell for $30-$40 dollars new, as that's what their publisher thinks a reasonable price point. In the case of NFL games, competition lowered that price. That's one of the things competition does. That does not make the lower price sub-normal, it means that the normal price is lower.

While we may have multiple WW2 FPS's, Multiple wartime RTS's, and so on and so on, the fact that two games were made about the same teams of the same game makes them nearly identical products.

Certainly it makes them quite comparable, yes. That's not a bad thing, as consumers get choice. They can pick which one has better quality, and/or better price. To entice the consumers, the maker have to either vastly improve quality, or noticably lower price.

They were forced to sell thier product for less than most other games just to compete.

Ah yes, the horrors of competition. Your rival lowers their price, and unless your quality is significantly greater, you must either lower your price, or lose sales. Such are the travesties of capitalism and free markets.

If this were any other publisher who decided to start taking more profits because they'd become more popular you wouldnt' say shit.

No, they didn't start taking more profits because they were more popular, they started taking more profits because they landed an exclusivity deal. In other words they managed to make themselves the only game in town, then started charging more because they didn't have to compete. I'm sure if it were Take Two that got the deal, killed off Madden, and raised the price back up, they've be receiving plenty of flak as well.

Just because your favorite game won does not give you the right to try and smear EA.

You got mixed up in your flaming/trolling. You mean to say "favorite game lost". Either way, I doubt that has any bearing on the criticism directed towards EA. Competition forced EA to be competitive in pricing and quality. Lack of it has had the opposite effect.

The comment that thier games became "shittier", or that the competition was "better" is a matter of opinion. SHUT UP about it now.

...and? Dennis made no mention of quality, merely of price.

You have my email, i give you permission to contact me on it to continue this. I do not give you permission to post it for others to do so.

The point of this little bit is what exactly? Dennis as a general rule doesn't post people's contact information. Heck, he practically makes it a habit of deleting contact information if there's a chance it'll be abused. He certainly doesn't bother to post the contact information for whiny trolling snots on the comments section/forums that happen not to like him. You're just below the noise in the face of stuff like the ESA throwing a hissy fits over criticism, or Jack Thompson's latest vague threats.

-Gray17

but does the FTC care? because they sure as hell are not really doing their job.  I have seen a guy from the IRS come to a company randomly and go through all of their financial files, and only found out that they owe $5 more on their taxes, when he was there for 3 weeks going through paper work.

These guys are a joke, and we need a REAL FTC, not some government front that acts like they are trying to protect the people, and do what is best for them.  That is for the consumer and the employees at Take Two.  This situation is such a lose-lose that if the FTC didn't block it, they are either paid off, they arent even doing their job, or they are stuck with rules that cant expand to common sense of what is better. (aka I, Robot logic where the robot saves Will Smith instead of the kid.)

Talking about whether or not this is a monopoly simply misses the point.  Yes, it is a monopoly.  Of course it is a monopoly.  But it's not the sort of monopoly that the antitrust laws (or the FTC) care about.  Your comment mixes up an illegal (abusive) and an economic monopoly.

Let's say I have a patent for a type of laser.  As I'm just a laser developer and don't have the cash to commercialize the product, I decide to license my patent to a large laser maker.  The license is simple.  It says that "Laser maker shall have the exclusive license to use my patent and laser maker shall pay me 5% of all gross profits on lasers sold that use my patent."  That's a monopoly for the laser maker.  It is the only company that can produce the laser.  If you want to buy the laser, you're going to the licensed laser maker.  Or China.  This is an economic monopoly.  But it's NOT a legal monopoly and the FTC doesn't care.  Are consumers harmed?  Sure.  That laser would be cheaper if there were ten companies instead of one making it.  But it's not an abusive monopoly.

Let's say I am a famous musician.  I pay some guy to roll a tape while I sing into a microphone and play my guitar.  I then take my tape to a company that makes and markets CDs, as I don't have the cash to make and market CDs myself.  The company and I enter into a license.  It says that "CD maker shall have the exclusive license to the copyright on my song."  If you want to buy my song, you have to pay CD maker.  This is an economic monopoly.  Are consumers harmed?  Sure.  That CD would certainly be cheaper if there were ten companies selling it.  But, again, it's not an abusive monopoly, and the FTC will laugh in your face when you tell them that there's "stifling of competition" and you have a "lock down on the damage."

Finally, let's say that I am a famous football league.  I own trademark Reg. # 3138589 and some associated marks.  I am approached by a famous developer and publisher of video games that is interested in obtaining the exclusive rights to use the mark (and attendant goodwill) in video games.  The company and I enter into a license.  The license says that the video game developer and publisher has the exclusive right to use my trademark.  If you want to buy a video game with my trademark on it, you have to pay the video game developer and publisher.  This is an economic monopoly.  However, just like patents, and just like copyrights, trademarks can be exclusively licensed.  That's how intellectual property rights work.  Saying "consumers are harmed" or "others can't compete" misses the point.  Of course they are harmed.  Of course they can't compete.  Monopoly rights are granted to inventors, creators, and traders by the U.S. government.  They can be licensed.  That's all EA did.  They bought a license to the trademark NFL and some associated rights (players' rights to publicity, etc.).  Anybody can come out with a football game that doesn't include these rights.  If EA prevented them from doing so, that's probably an antitrust problem, but it's hard to envision how that restraint would work out.  Would anybody buy a football game that doesn't include any reference to the NFL, its teams, or its players?  No, of course not.  But that's not the point here.  The point is that EA took an exclusive license, something which it can do.  Saying "aww, this sucks for consumers" has absolutely zero bearing on the merits of this frivolous lawsuit.

It also sucked for years that Claritin was only sold by one manufacturer - Schering-Plough.  Monopoly?  Hell yes.  Bad for competition?  Hell yes.  Bad for consumers?  Hell yes.  Did any of that matter?  No.  IP rights trumped, as loratadine was patented.  If Schering-Plough had exclusively licensed loratadine to one manufacturer, would we suddenly have a case?  No.  There's no difference between that situation and this one.