Over 29 years of fanhood Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 That's not the same thing as knowing Asians. Hell, I guess I could make the claim that I've done business with them since I've owned an Iphone for the past four years. The point is you seem to put Asians on a pedestal because of their ability to get their countrymen to work for pennies. It doesn't make them any more noble, just more desperate. As far as your assertion that somehow signing up to receive money collected in a settlement that I'm legally entitled to is somehow greedy and damaging to the national character. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree because EA was the one that did something wrong and agreed to take the slap on the wrist. All I did was honestly answer an online questionnaire about how many of their products I bought. If you want to save a multi-billion dollar corporation a few dollars then feel free, but the rest of us would appreciate it if you toned down the hyperbole. Takers always resent the doers. Doers get annoyed with the takers. Such is life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 Booooo....logic and a basic grasp of the situation. Yeah, because corporate law, monopolistic practices, price gouging and unfair businesses practices are all simple matters that Cellino and Barnes could handle. Maybe it's time to stop painting things with such broad strokes and start taking things on a case by case basis. I'm willing to bet you have read very little about this and are merely voicing your uninformed opinion. And that is truly what's wrong with this country. An uniformed populace thinking they know everything about everything. Seriously it scares me that this is deemed complicated.... There is a logo on the box about exclusive licensing and always has been. Are we acting surprised that forging exclusivity agreements result in the ability to command a premium? That's dumb. Price is what people are willing to pay. Ugh. If people didn't buy it at the given price EA would have had to re evaluate the business model. This is a clear situation where people decided to buy a product knowing what it is they are buying, knowing it's exclusively licensed and knowing the price, and still continuing to purchase it, year after year only to decide they we later wronged because the price was too high... For a freaken video game, not bread gas or water. And yes hagens Berman is a notorious class action firm with an army of lawyers that spend every hour of every day finding new angles to extract large profit from deep pockets while distributing meager class awards. All that was accomplished by the class was to get a couple bucks, transfer wealth to lawyers and impair a company that designs and develops a product that you have loyally purchased for years. I don't think ignorance itself as you cite is the issue it's ignorance plus naivety... People just don't understand how the world works not do they get cause and effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Caveman Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 People just don't understand how the world works not do they get cause and effect. Do you disagree that this was a monopoly, or do you think monopolies should be legal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 (edited) Do you disagree that this was a monopoly, or do you think monopolies should be legal? Disagree it is monopoly. People can buy any video game they want. If you chose to buy madden football which is exclusively licensed then it is a specific premium product. To me It's like buying a Ferrari then later feeling victimized that you payed so much because no one else sells a Ferrari and I am sure there is some technology they license exclusively. And what is the correct path forward? If you outlaw exclusivity it will deter investment in developing new software and you don't then a court now decides how much profit is acceptable not the market. How narrowly are we going to allow the definition of a monopoly to descend? Is the next one to band together and sue nike or rebok for exclusively selling bills jerseys for a 500% mark up. After all we are "victims" of our inability to just not buy frivolous things we think are too expensive. Why has no one sued Nike for charging $120 for air Jordan's as the exclusive owner of that license? I mean I can get 4000 other types of shoes but none have a silhouette of mj going for a dunk. Edited November 8, 2013 by over 20 years of fanhood Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Caveman Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 Disagree it is monopoly. People can buy any video game they want. Right, but for a long time people could not buy another NFL video game because EA paid NFL to not allow it. Immediately after paying for this, they jacked up the price almost 100%. That's the definition of monopolistic behavior as it is generally recognized by the courts, strategically working to provide customers fewer options, and then profiting from it. But if you disagree, then I guess you disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thisistheyear Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 (edited) Takers always resent the doers. Doers get annoyed with the takers. Such is life. Another, black and white, broad stroke, blanket statement. I do. I do everyday. I do by running a business that employs 15 people directly and makes a point to keep its vendors local and American. I also just took my $104 check from this settlement and deposited it. So, I guess I'm a doer and a taker. The truth is that it's talkers, not takers who resent the doers. The takers are generally too lazy to resent anything. However, as a doer I greatly resent the talkers. We live in a nation of dilettantes and arm chair QBs. Disagree it is monopoly. People can buy any video game they want. If you chose to buy madden football which is exclusively licensed then it is a specific premium product. To me It's like buying a Ferrari then later feeling victimized that you payed so much because no one else sells a Ferrari and I am sure there is some technology they license exclusively. And what is the correct path forward? If you outlaw exclusivity it will deter investment in developing new software and you don't then a court now decides how much profit is acceptable not the market. How narrowly are we going to allow the definition of a monopoly to descend? Is the next one to band together and sue nike or rebok for exclusively selling bills jerseys for a 500% mark up. After all we are "victims" of our inability to just not buy frivolous things we think are too expensive. Why has no one sued Nike for charging $120 for air Jordan's as the exclusive owner of that license? I mean I can get 4000 other types of shoes but none have a silhouette of mj going for a dunk. It's not just about the license, it's about the fact that the license allowed EA to effectively make it impossible for any other video game maker to produce and bring to market a football game. This lawsuit wasn't about price gouging, it was about stifling the competition. The MJ logo wasn't so powerful that it caused all other sneaker manufactures to cease making basketball shoes. So, in your scenario, saying go and buy another video game to play is like saying go and play basketball wearing track shoes. Look, I love the free market. I think monopolies are both a scourge against competition and a driver of growth and technology. These opinions are not mutually exclusive. I run a business that competes against two huge national brands and I've had to work my butt off to carve out a niche that keeps me in business. I spent years treading water and am finally thriving. My competition has the advantage of economy of scale, tax breaks I could never dream of, corporate lawyers that could put me out of business for sneezing and more. Yet, I don't begrudge them for one second. I have no idea if EA was monopolistic and neither do you. People that know way more about it than you and I declared that it was a monopoly. Yet somehow you're boiling this down to takers take and doers do. I find that a little insulting and a gross oversimplification about a hugely complicated issue that has been debated since the dawn of capitalism. Edited November 8, 2013 by Thisistheyear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 Right, but for a long time people could not buy another NFL video game because EA paid NFL to not allow it. Immediately after paying for this, they jacked up the price almost 100%. That's the definition of monopolistic behavior as it is generally recognized by the courts, strategically working to provide customers fewer options, and then profiting from it. But if you disagree, then I guess you disagree. You can define anything as a monopoly if you zoom in enough. Here is where I am for sake of discussion then I will relent: If you open a lemonade stand on the corner of third and main with water exclusively licensed from the house on the corner and sugar from Brazil then you have a monopoly on lemonade sold with water from the house on the corner of third and main and sugar from Brazil. Since, your lemonade is so damn good or convenient people are willing to pay a premium for it rather than iced tea or soda or even lemonade but not made with the licensed water from that house elsewhere. ----- The licensing exclusion is legitimate business practice, barrier to entry and investment protection. Is it ea's fault no one went out and made a Canadian football game or brought back a non licensed NFL game like techno bowl? Another, black and white, broad stroke, blanket statement. I do. I do everyday. I do by running a business that employs 15 people directly and makes a point to keep its vendors local and American. I also just took my $104 check from this settlement and deposited it. So, I guess I'm a doer and a taker. The truth is that it's talkers, not takers who resent the doers. As a doer I greatly resent the talkers. It's not just about the license, it's about the fact that the license allowed EA to effectively make it impossible for any other video game maker to produce and bring to market a football game. This lawsuit wasn't truly about price gouging, it was about stifling the competition. The MJ logo wasn't so powerful that it caused all other sneaker manufactures to cease making basketball shoes. So, in your scenario, saying go and buy another video game to play is like saying go and play basketball wearing track shoes. Look, I love the free market. I think monopolies are both a scourge against competition and a driver of growth and technology. These opinions are not mutually exclusive. I run a business that competes against two huge national brands and I've had to work my butt off to carve out a niche that keeps me in business. I spent years treading water and am finally thriving. My competition has the advantage of economy of scale, tax breaks I could never dream of, corporate lawyers that could put me out of business for sneezing and more. Yet, I don't begrudge them for one second. I have no idea if EA was monopolistic and neither do you. People that know way more about it than you and I declared that it was a monopoly. Yet somehow you're boiling this down to takers take and doers do. I find that a little insulting and a gross oversimplification about a hugely complicated issue that has been debated since the dawn of capitalism. You can't make something seem overly complicated by saying its complicated. The documented claims are very clear, just look it up. The settlement made did not accompany an admission of guilt by ea or an agreement monopolistic behavior was engaged in, or a drastic substantive policy change in licensing practice resulting from the ruling. There was no impediment identified to creating football video games. None. There were no federal anti trust charges. There was no guilty verdict in court. This was a money grab. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrantIronsFan Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 This is why we cant have nice things Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thisistheyear Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 You can define anything as a monopoly if you zoom in enough. Here is where I am for sake of discussion then I will relent: If you open a lemonade stand on the corner of third and main with water exclusively licensed from the house on the corner and sugar from Brazil then you have a monopoly on lemonade sold with water from the house on the corner of third and main and sugar from Brazil. Since, your lemonade is so damn good or convenient people are willing to pay a premium for it rather than iced tea or soda or even lemonade but not made with the licensed water from that house elsewhere. ----- The licensing exclusion is legitimate business practice, barrier to entry and investment protection. Is it ea's fault no one went out and made a Canadian football game or brought back a non licensed NFL game like techno bowl? You can't make something seem overly complicated by saying its complicated. The documented claims are very clear, just look it up. The settlement made did not accompany an admission of guilt by ea or an agreement monopolistic behavior was engaged in, or a drastic substantive policy change in licensing practice resulting from the ruling. There was no impediment identified to creating football video games. None. There were no federal anti trust charges. There was no guilty verdict in court. This was a money grab. Like I said, I have no idea if this was a monopoly or not. In my opinion, there was a definite impediment to creating a football game. I can only point to the lack of other football games as evidence. Settlements are often agreed upon to blunt future action. Why would EA agree to acknowledge they acted like a monopoly? They are protecting themselves. We are debating whether or not EA was monopolistic in it's approach to the football genre, but I'm only playing devil's advocate. I don't know nor do I care if they were. I am only commenting on this because I actually partook in this and benefited from it. I got an entire $104 back. Someone said that lawsuits like these are what's wrong with society. I find that absurd. And I absolutely believe that America wouldn't be where it is without certain monopolies. I think you can point to Standard Oil and Microsoft as two examples. Without those two monopolies the growth of the automobile, the nation's infrastructure and personal computing would have been severely stunted. Anyway, I have doing to do. Go Bills! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 ...I have no idea if this was a monopoly or not... I don't know nor do I care if they were....I actually partook in this and benefited from it. I got an entire $104 back... I couldn't had made my point any better than you have! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterpan Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 Is the next one to band together and sue nike or rebok for exclusively selling bills jerseys for a 500% mark up. I agree with you here. I don't see why the NFL can grant exclusive rights to Nike to sell Jerseys but not EA Sports to sell video games. When did you guys get checks? I did buy a few of these games between those yeras, and I filled out the paper work. I haven't gotten anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thisistheyear Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 I couldn't had made my point any better than you have! Thanks. I'm good at making points. I hope I also made my point, which is that you don't know as much as you think you know and the world is made up of varying shades of gray. People who live in a black and white world are doing themselves a great disservice. On this particular debate I will only say that my $104 is going towards a very nice dinner tonight and I have no qualms about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 (edited) Thanks. I'm good at making points. I hope I also made my point, which is that you don't know as much as you think you know and the world is made up of varying shades of gray. People who live in a black and white world are doing themselves a great disservice. On this particular debate I will only say that my $104 is going towards a very nice dinner tonight and I have no qualms about it. Cool. My point was losers try to scam money out of anyone and anywhere they can rather than create opportunities on their own merit. Guess we agree. Enjoy that dinner. I have one of those every week with my own cash not money scammed off a frivolous lawsuit. Come by any time and I'll cover you too... Just don't sue me for giving you what you want at the price you are wiling to pay please! Oops sorry it's complicated... Edited November 9, 2013 by over 20 years of fanhood Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benderbender Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 Thanks. I'm good at making points. I hope I also made my point, which is that you don't know as much as you think you know and the world is made up of varying shades of gray. People who live in a black and white world are doing themselves a great disservice. On this particular debate I will only say that my $104 is going towards a very nice dinner tonight and I have no qualms about it. $104 for dinner? What are you having lobster stuffed with beluga caviar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBillsForever Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 (edited) Just don't sue me for giving you what you want at the price you are wiling to pay year after year and have probably posted on the internet how they have enjoyed playing the games, please! This is the demographic of the frivolous lawsuit right here. Edited November 9, 2013 by BuffaloBillsForever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevestojan Posted November 10, 2013 Share Posted November 10, 2013 Instead of getting your $5, $35, $106, etc from EA, you should all really be suing the guy that had his gun against your back forcing you to buy these video games. I liked Super Mario in 1985, but I didn't LOVE it, and my God if Nintendo didn't have the monopoly on games that included two Italian plumbers fighting a dinosaur/dragon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WVUFootball29 Posted November 11, 2013 Share Posted November 11, 2013 Just got a check today from this settlement for 24.00 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrags Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 I was banned when I got my check. Just realized to come back here and make note that I received $68 and change. Nothing that's gonna be a down payment on my next car but a tank of gas and a six pack ain't bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts