Ok thats just mean EA, just mean

[taks]

in the long run, maybe.  but then you just crushed your own theory that monopolies "work" in the long run.  all youre stated is basically that eventually a fair market system will re-establish itself to break the monopoly.  which means that again, the best possible system is a fair market system.

no, i didn't "crush" any theory of mine at all. the entire point is that the monopoly really never exists... it's kind of like a limiting function. as a company gets closer to monopoly status, it self extinguishes.

 

your basic argument is that a monopoly works because it eventually leads to competition when the business who has the monopoly's market share starts to falter due to no competition.  that seems like a messed up theory when after all is said and done, you assume that a new fair market will rise in its place.

no, that's not my argument at all. you're taking one line out of the context of the whole argument. a company acheives monopoly status by providing a better mousetrap (not a bad thing), but attracts competition in doing so. in the end, the concept of a monopoly is only a theoretical tool used to explain the entire mechanism.

 

and even if that does, in fact, happen eventually, ea will have a run of about 10 or 20 years of monopolized profits and consumers will have to wait until "joe average" shows up a decade or so down the line.

 

im still not seeing how that is good for the CONSUMER.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

where do you get the 10 to 20 years thing? two points... 1) if EA does a good job, that's inherently good for the consumer 2) if EA does a bad job, the NFL or ESPN will drop them like a hot potato and allow competition to take the helm. that's good for the consumer.

 

the concept of capitalism is simple...

 

taks

[NeverwinterKnight]

"just look at the gas industry"

 

I look. *shrug* Competition is there. It is NOT a monoply. And, the services they provide vary in rnage of price and service so your point makes little sense. Try again.

 

this statement proves you have no clue what youre even talking about.

 

And, once again, this tlak about the consumer. Screw the consumer. I hate consuemr.s I hate 'em with a passion. They are selfish, arrogant, igmornat, dumb,r etarded, cruel, jerkish, and every other name I cna think off. They are pure evil and need to be CRUSHED.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

uh? the entire point was about how a monopoly is bad for consumers. so the fact you think the consumer isnt important just adds to the proof you have no clue whatsoever about this topic.

[taks]

if you want "proof" of how monopolies work, just look at the gas industry.  or is the fact that gas prices have soared over the last 20 years not proof enough for you that monopolies are a bad thing for the consumer?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

uh, excuse me? gas prices have less than doubled in 20 years... this equates to a MUCH lower rate of increase than inflation (typical goods have risen almost 3X). gas prices are based (loosely) on a commodity trade of oil on, well, the commodities market. plus, gas has been dropping again. i'd say an increase that's less than inflation is quite good for the consumer... bad example dude.

 

futhermore, exactly where is the monopoly in the "gas industry?" there are literally dozens of companies selling gasoline.

 

taks

[taks]

insulting volourn isn't going to get you anywhere, neverwinterknight. particularly since you are misunderstanding the concept of capitalism in the first place.

 

taks

[Ivan the Terrible]

"It's good business, but it's a really BAD situation for Joe Gamer (including you and me.)"

 

No. It's a GREAT situation for me. Only trolls would attempt to speak on my behalf. Please don't.

 

I LOVE the fact that they spam the so called 'medicore' sports games. Even though; they don't. I love it that they update their sports games.

 

Do you like it so much you'd like to see the same tried-and-true game (or a bazillion expansion packs for said game) released over and over rather than seeing new ideas? Do you genuinely enjoy the triumph of copycats and easy-to-develop mediocrity over inspired but niche-market games? Are you looking forward to waiting through three patches (if you even get more than one) for the next game which is released early because selling an unfinished product to consumers is more profitable than waiting until it's done?

 

If so, you're EA's model customer. You're also a dyed-in-the-wool sucker.

 

To compare games like Madden to  KOTOR is just plain silly. So silly it's beyond silly.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Primarily because you don't understand the comparison. Other game companies can't do the 'release the same game with a new year' gimmick; that's precisely the point. While they may have better games than EA (and many, if not most, do), they lose.

 

Does this improve the situation for the consumer in the slightest? Nope.

 

Waiting for the Almighty Dollar to rescue you from mediocrity in gaming is idiotic, because there's far more efficient ways to make money then to release a detailed and inspired game when it's actually finished.

[NeverwinterKnight]

no, i didn't "crush" any theory of mine at all.  the entire point is that the monopoly really never exists... it's kind of like a limiting function.  as a company gets closer to monopoly status, it self extinguishes.

 

using one of volourns favorite comebacks. "proof please?". you make unfounded hypotheses and conjecture about what will happen, but i have yet to see actual real life proof where a "monopoly" suddenly turns into an open market over time.

 

no, that's not my argument at all. you're taking one line out of the context of the whole argument.  a company acheives monopoly status by providing a better mousetrap (not a bad thing), but attracts competition in doing so.  in the end, the concept of a monopoly is only a theoretical tool used to explain the entire mechanism.

 

by definition, a monopoly destroys competition, not attracts it. what you are commenting on isnt a true monopoly.

 

where do you get the 10 to 20 years thing?  two points... 1) if EA does a good job, that's inherently good for the consumer 2) if EA does a bad job, the NFL or ESPN will drop them like a hot potato and allow competition to take the helm.  that's good for the consumer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

really? so nfl and espn can just break their contract with ea if ea doesnt produce quality titles? thats called a lawsuit if they tried to do that. and if ea drives other competitors out of business, who exactly is going to have the kind of money needed to come in and take their place, especially when the nfl license is still contracted out to ea?

[213374U]

I'm going to enjoy seeing you cry when I don't pay double the price. You see, unlike others, I don't need games. if they become to expensive; i don't buy 'em. Period. This is why I don't bother buying too many D&D 3E stuff like I used to. Way too expensive hence not worth it. If EA decides to double the price; well; they just lost my money.

 

Either way, I win.

Yeah, so going from having nice games at nice prices to having mediocre games at ridiculously high prices is indeed winning. Like it or not, that's what a monopoly means. Higher prices, lower overall product quality.

 

And no, I could care less if you buy games or not. After all, if I don't feel like paying what a game's worth, I can just rent it, even PC titles. Can you say the same? )

[NeverwinterKnight]

uh, excuse me?  gas prices have less than doubled in 20 years... this equates to a MUCH lower rate of increase than inflation (typical goods have risen almost 3X).  gas prices are based (loosely) on a commodity trade of oil on, well, the commodities market.  plus, gas has been dropping again.  i'd say an increase that's less than inflation is quite good for the consumer... bad example dude.

 

really? wow, i should gas up where you live then. because where i live not even ten years ago i could gas up my pos car for about $15 to $20. now its well over $30 and closing in on $40 for a fill up.

 

futhermore, exactly where is the monopoly in the "gas industry?"  there are literally dozens of companies selling gasoline. 

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

dozens SELLING (ie. distributors). where do you think they get their gas sources from? there arent a dozen of sources that control the oil and gas. dont mistake seeing shell and esso and whatever as the "monopoly" im referring to.

 

btw, where did i insult volour? i stated that his view of monopolies is messed up at best and that indicates he doesnt have a clue about the topic.

[draakh_kimera]

really?  so nfl and espn can just break their contract with ea if ea doesnt produce quality titles?  thats called a lawsuit if they tried to do that.  and if ea drives other competitors out of business, who exactly is going to have the kind of money needed to come in and take their place, especially when the nfl license is still contracted out to ea?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't think NFL or ESPN would have signed a conract without any specific requirements or conditions. So, theoretically, if the loss of money for ESPN and NFL is something that will only be tolerated to a certain extent, and that point is brought up in the contract/license, then they could break the contract. I think. I'm not that great at legal complexities...taks, say something. You know your ****

[Ivan the Terrible]

"im still not seeing how that is good for the CONSUMER."

 

Ahh.. I get it. It's all about selfishness. It's about you. That's cool. At least it's good to know.

 

No offense, Volourn, but if that's your attitude, you make a really lousy capitalist.

 

The whole point is that you worry about your niche, and out of the competition and drive for advance of individuals arises greater quality and efficiency. I'm sure EA executives are touched at your heartfelt devotion to their well-being, but since you're a consumer I would assume it would be in your interests to figure out how you get a better game rather than how EA keeps it's market share.

[draakh_kimera]

uh, excuse me?  gas prices have less than doubled in 20 years... this equates to a MUCH lower rate of increase than inflation (typical goods have risen almost 3X).  gas prices are based (loosely) on a commodity trade of oil on, well, the commodities market.  plus, gas has been dropping again.  i'd say an increase that's less than inflation is quite good for the consumer... bad example dude.

 

really? wow, i should gas up where you live then. because where i live not even ten years ago i could gas up my pos car for about $15 to $20. now its well over $30 and closing in on $40 for a fill up.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Did you take into account the change of value of currency due to inflation? I think almost all currencies have grown weaker relative to a decade or two ago.

[NeverwinterKnight]

Did you take into account the change of value of currency due to inflation?  I think almost all currencies have grown weaker relative to a decade or two ago.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

yes, i did.

 

and even permitting that my EXAMPLE was not a good one, that doesnt mean that what volour says about monopolies is correct, since the gas industry is probably closer to an oligopoly as it is. so if a company with relatively few competitors can do such damage with the price of gas, how much more if there is an absolute monopoly.

[Volourn]

"Do you like it so much you'd like to see the same tried-and-true game (or a bazillion expansion packs for said game) released over and over rather than seeing new ideas?"

 

EA has new ideas every year for their sports games.

 

" Do you genuinely enjoy the triumph of copycats and easy-to-develop mediocrity over inspired but niche-market games?"

 

What are you babbling about? EA doesn't need to copy anyone when it comes to sports games. Outside of the silly junky old style Arcade sports games; E pratically 'invented' the sports game. At least sports games thata re cool. I think only a handful of non EA sports games have evr been good. That being baldes of Steel and Techmo Bowl. All else is crap.

 

 

"Are you looking forward to waiting through three patches (if you even get more than one) for the next game which is released early because selling an unfinished product to consumers is more profitable than waiting until it's done?"

 

WTH? I have never a patch for an EA sports game. None. Zero. Zilch. I doubt I ever will anytime soon.

 

 

"While they may have better games than EA (and many, if not most, do), they lose."

 

An opinion. An opinion I complete;y disagree with. No one, and I mean, no one can comapre to EA when it comes sports games. This was true even when there was 'competition". it won't change now either.

 

 

"If so, you're EA's model customer. You're also a dyed-in-the-wool sucker. "

 

Out of all the EA games I've bpight; I've only disliked a small handful. I wish pother publishers - small or big - were even close to being good when it comes to delivering products to their consumers. Next troll please.

 

 

"Does this improve the situation for the consumer in the slightest? Nope."

 

Nor does it make it any worse for the SMART consumer. Smart sports game consumers buy EA. All other sports gam,es are crap. IUf you supported loer companies I have no mercy for you, suckers.

 

 

"Waiting for the Almighty Dollar to rescue you from mediocrity in gaming is idiotic, because there's far more efficient ways to make money then to release a detailed and inspired game when it's actually finished."

 

Another opinionated troll. Boo hoo. You think EA game suck. good for you. I think they are good. good for me. I win, you lose. You are the idiot for supporting loser products.

 

 

"this statement proves you have no clue what youre even talking about."

 

Hilarious. lIKE Taks said, you know nothing. Mor ethan one company sells gas. What a maroon.

 

 

"uh? the entire point was about how a monopoly is bad for consumers. so the fact you think the consumer isnt important just adds to the proof you have no clue whatsoever about this topic."

 

No. the pointwas that monoplies ar ebad. Period. They aren't or theya re depending on who has a monoply. EA having a monpoly of NFL games is a good thing for EA, the NFL, and intelligent sports game fans. The moronic sports fans can either shape up and buy EA Madden or go cry in their spilled milk. No matter what, I win.

 

 

"Yeah, so going from having nice games at nice prices to having mediocre games at ridiculously high prices is indeed winning. Like it or not, that's what a monopoly means. Higher prices, lower overall product quality."

 

Proof please.

 

I paid $80 dollars for Madden 2005. It was a great game with some faults. If it comes out next year for $160 and is just medicror or outright crap than you'll be right. It won't so you auto lose.

 

 

"And no, I could care less if you buy games or not."

 

It's good to know you care.

 

 

"After all, if I don't feel like paying what a game's worth, I can just rent it, even PC titles. Can you say the same? "

 

I edn to rent before buying console games. Though; for the last 3 years I've made exmeptions for E sports games. In that time, I've bought 9 of them ,a nd only one I regret. Damn NBA Live 2005. LOL I'm more likely to be screwed buying crappy RPGs like POR2, IWD2, MW, and others than an EA sports game. that's for sure.

 

Peace.

 

 

GO EA GO!

 

 

edit: "I'm sure EA executives are touched at your heartfelt devotion to their well-being, but since you're a consumer I would assume it would be in your interests to figure out how you get a better game rather than how EA keeps it's market share. "

 

Eh? I couldn't care less about EA. if they made ****ty games; I wouldn't buy them. Period. If they made ****ty games I disliked; i woiuldn't care that they'd go under. I support them because they make games I like. I'm as selfish as the next consumer. I never said otherwise.

[NeverwinterKnight]

btw, draahk (or whatever your username is), what exactly are you arguing for or against?

 

i dont feel like getting into a debate over semantics if youre not actually agreeing with volourns initial statement. it gets rather tedious when people come out of the woodwork and quote a specific example or comment i made and pick fault with it, when they dont actually comment on the general idea that im arguing for.

 

in other words, if you agree with volourn, say what you believe. but if youre just going to pick apart something ive said that might not have been my best option for an example, then dont bother.

[draakh_kimera]

@NeverwinterKnight

 

Not really arguing, though if I'd have to choose a side, well, yours. As for my comment, I wasn't trying to be offensive in any way. It's just that most people I've tried to discuss economy with don't really think about rates of inflation, changes of rates of inflation, exchange rates, and other economic crap, so just asking

[Ivan the Terrible]

"Do you like it so much you'd like to see the same tried-and-true game (or a bazillion expansion packs for said game) released over and over rather than seeing new ideas?"

 

EA has new ideas every year for their sports games.

 

It's the same game, every year. Slightly updated, and yet released as a totally new product. It's a beautiful set-up, business-wise, but it's hardly the model I'd like to see the gaming industry develop upon....and setting aside Sports games (for which a new game for a new year makes some sense), how many expansion packs has The Sims had now?

 

What are you babbling about? EA doesn't need to copy anyone when it comes to sports games.

 

Who says they need to copy anyone else? Did Westwood need to copy from another company in order to make dozens of crappy Command & Conquer rip-offs?

 

Milking a profitable idea until it's bled completely dry can happen in-company, you know.

 

WTH? I have never a patch for an EA sports game. None. Zero. Zilch. I doubt I ever will anytime soon.

 

Precisely what is their motivation for providing you with a bug-free game when they dominate their market? Games released early make more money, and if people want to play them then they (meaning, you) will wait for the patches anyway.

 

That's what a monopoly is, Volourn. You're celebrating the fact that you have no real choices. That's beyond stupid.

 

"While they may have better games than EA (and many, if not most, do), they lose."

 

An opinion. An opinion I complete;y disagree with. No one, and I mean, no one can comapre to EA when it comes  sports games. This was true even when there was 'competition". it won't change now either.

 

Meanwhile, many, and I mean, MANY other game companies can not only compare, but make far better games in other every other genre....and you're apparently happy that a slew of crappy sports games allows EA the power to snuff them out whenever it pleases. After all, if they had only had the sense to stake out their own unimaginative, reliable money-farm rather than concentrating on making new games with new designs that take extra time and money, they'd still be in business....right?

 

Eh? I couldn't care less about EA. if they made ****ty games; I wouldn't buy them. Period. If they made ****ty games I disliked; i woiuldn't care that they'd go under. I support them because they make games I like. I'm as selfish as the next consumer. I never said otherwise.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Then why are you whining about how people are selfish for worrying only about the consumers, of which you are a part? Yes, they're selfish; that's the way the whole freaking system works.

[213374U]

"Yeah, so going from having nice games at nice prices to having mediocre games at ridiculously high prices is indeed winning. Like it or not, that's what a monopoly means. Higher prices, lower overall product quality."

 

Proof please.

 

I paid $80 dollars for Madden 2005. It was a great game with some faults. If it comes out  next year for $160 and is just medicror or outright crap than you'll be right. It won't so you auto lose.

Want proof of how monopolies have product quality decrease while at the same time increasing prices? Microsoft is all the proof you need. If EA is allowed to get a similar monopoly on sports games, the same thing is bound to happen. Monopolies are the dead end of rampant capitalism.

[Volourn]

"setting aside Sports games (for which a new game for a new year makes some sense), how many expansion packs has The Sims had now?"

 

A. I don't give a damn about the Sims.

 

B. Sims gets tons of expansions because want the expansions to be amde because people like the Sims. Period.

 

Stop crying because EA knows how to make games people want to play, and other comapnies seemingly don't.

 

 

"Precisely what is their motivation for providing you with a bug-free game when they dominate their market? Games released early make more money, and if people want to play them then they (meaning, you) will wait for the patches anyway."

 

*yawn* The RPG genre has comepitgiton yet those games are riddled with patches - even the good devlopers rely on patches. see: BIO, Troika, et al.

 

I have NEVER patched an EA game unless it was a RPG 'cause I never needed to. i need proof before accusing them of screwing up. Not some half wit random dink on a message baord's gloom and doom opinion to go by.

 

 

"You're celebrating the fact that you have no real choices."

 

The only thing beyond stupid is you telling me I have "no real choice". I always have a choice. Don't tell me that I don't when I do.

 

 

"Meanwhile, many, and I mean, MANY other game companies can not only compare, but make far better games in other every other genre....and you're apparently happy that a slew of crappy sports games allows EA the power to snuff them out whenever it pleases. After all, if they had only had the sense to stake out their own unimaginative, reliable money-farm rather than concentrating on making new games with new designs that take extra time and money, they'd still be in business....right?"

 

The more you argue about your opinion about how 'crappy' EA games are; the more I'll tune you out as someone who is only attacking them not based on relaity but on your silly notion that they make crappy games. When they don't. Deal with it.

 

 

"Then why are you whining about how people are selfish for worrying only about the consumers, of which you are a part? Yes, they're selfish; that's the way the whole freaking system works."

 

That's because when people argue against monopilies they make it out to be a morlaity case when it is simply their selfishness. I point out the fact that it's all about selfishness on the consumer's part including my own.

 

If that's the 'way ther system workjs" then you should admit that EA has done absolutely nothingw rong. theya re looking out for thier best interest. As they should. Period.

 

Of course, even as a monoply, it's not in their best interets to make crappy game after crappy game. People will notice, AND they will stop buying.

 

 

"Want proof of how monopolies have product quality decrease while at the same time increasing prices? Microsoft is all the proof you need. If EA is allowed to get a similar monopoly on sports games, the same thing is bound to happen. Monopolies are the dead end of rampant capitalism."

 

This isn't proof. Get REAL proof.

 

Like I said, if Madden 2006 is $160 and is worse than Madden 2005 than i'll say you'll win. But that won't happen so, once again, you auto lose.

[213374U]

"Want proof of how monopolies have product quality decrease while at the same time increasing prices? Microsoft is all the proof you need. If EA is allowed to get a similar monopoly on sports games, the same thing is bound to happen. Monopolies are the dead end of rampant capitalism."

 

This isn't proof. Get REAL proof.

 

Like I said, if Madden 2006 is $160 and is worse than Madden 2005 than i'll say you'll win. But that won't happen so, once again, you auto lose.

Define 'REAL' proof.

 

You realize that due to the linear character of time it's impossible to prove something that hasn't happened yet, do you?

Can you prove the sun will rise tomorrow? No, you can't. However, chances are it will.

 

Now, based on logic and past similar experiences, you can make a prediction with a very high probabilty of it accurately descripting future events.

 

MS is a perfect example of a monopoly. You can't deny that.

Now, once a company has swept all competition, they can ask almost what they want for their product, without worrying too much about its quality, because there's nobody out there to dispute their market share.

 

I have provided an example and a reasoning to back my claims. Now it's your turn to do the same. The ball is in your court. If you can't, you will 'auto lose'.

[Volourn]

"MS is a perfect example of a monopoly. You can't deny that."

 

Ha. They are a company that delivers a service that people want and do a good damn job of it. Period.

 

However, THEY. ARE. NOT. A. MONOPOLY.

 

 

"have provided an example and a reasoning to back my claims. Now it's your turn to do the same. The ball is in your court. If you can't, you will 'auto lose'."

 

You gave one example. That being MS which proves nothing. Not to mention the fact that MS isn't a monopoly. It has compeitiors. Youa ren't even trying. Fer shame.

 

Once again, if Madden 2006 is selling for $160 and sucks 9which i'd find out by renting since I would not pay $160 for it) than you'd win; but since that won't happen you autolose.

 

Game over. Again.

[NeverwinterKnight]

Once again, if Madden 2006 is selling for $160 and sucks 9which i'd find out by renting since I would  not pay $160 for it) than you'd win; but since that won't happen you autolose.

 

Game over. Again.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

so the games price needs to double AND suck in order for you to agree its a bad thing? what if the games price remains the same but the quality goes down the tube? is that not enough proof for you?

 

monopolies can do one of two things (and sometimes both): 1)bring down quality and/or 2)drive up prices for that good or service.

[213374U]

However, THEY. ARE. NOT. A. MONOPOLY.

Predictable. Instead of coming up with ideas of your own, you just attack mine. But it doesn't matter since MS was legally declared a monopoly due to all that IE business. You auto lose. )

[Volourn]

"so the games price needs to double AND suck in order for you to agree its a bad thing? what if the games price remains the same but the quality goes down the tube? is that not enough proof for you?"

 

I'm not the one who made it that way. Someone, I believe #U, said that I would upset if next year it would be doubled in price and suck. i'm just going along with what it said.

 

However, I'll say this, if the price rises up to $100+ dollars and/or the game is definitely worse (as opposed to marginally worse since the Madden series goes up and down sometimes as they twink the game play each year. ie. this year it's MUCH HARDER to run the ball than last year( than I'd complain. But, i seriously doubt that it's the case.

 

 

"But it doesn't matter since MS was legally declared a monopoly due to all that IE business."

 

Irrelevant. MS has competitor hence it cna't, by defintion, be a monopoly. The US gov't was just trying to steal MS's money.

 

 

"Instead of coming up with ideas of your own, you just attack mine."

 

Not my fault; you make it easy by giving a bad exmaple.

 

however, I'll give an example of monoplies that are as solid as if they had compeitiors more or less - Hydro. (though technically, the Natural Gas companies now comepte with them).

 

It's really hard to find a REAL monopoly nowdays. Even EA isn't even CLOSE to being a monopoly.

 

Game over.

[213374U]

"But it doesn't matter since MS was legally declared a monopoly due to all that IE business."

 

Irrelevant. MS has competitor hence it cna't, by defintion, be a monopoly. The US gov't was just trying to steal MS's money.

LOL. I won't pretend I know more than magistrates and economists, unlike you do. If MS is declared a monopoly in court, I'll believe it until it's proven otherwise.

 

I agree, however, that pure monopolies may be hard to find, as it happens with all theoretical concepts. MS may not have been a pure monopoly, but it was a practical one, and that's what counts.

 

But none of that really matters. Monopolies are good only for those running the monopoly. For the rest of us lowly mortals, they suck. Monopolies kill competence, which is the most important pillar of a free market. And that's basic economics theory. When I see a monopoly that's good for the average joe, I'll swallow my words. Until then you auto lose.

 

Game over, and all that stuff you keep saying.

[Ivan the Terrible]

"setting aside Sports games (for which a new game for a new year makes some sense), how many expansion packs has The Sims had now?"

 

A. I don't give a damn about the Sims.

 

Good for you. What does that have to do with anything beyond your terminal failure to understand what we're arguing about?

 

B. Sims gets tons of expansions because want the expansions to be amde because people like the Sims. Period.

 

Stop crying because EA knows how to make games people want to play, and other comapnies seemingly don't.

 

So, in other words, you would like to see the gaming industry set up on the model of remaking the same game over and over because it's more profitable. Hey, the games may be mediocre and all the same, but if the company making it is turning a profit, what could be wrong with it?

 

I take it you would also like to see independent film studios devoured to make way for the latest Michael Bay crapfest? After all, the guy makes much more money for the studios than, say, Martin Scorcese....therefore he must be a superior director. What other conclusion could you reach?

 

 

"You're celebrating the fact that you have no real choices."

 

The only thing beyond stupid is you telling me I have "no real choice". I always have a choice. Don't tell me that I don't when I do.

 

Your choices:

 

1) Buy an EA Sports game.

 

2) Buy a Sports game with make-believe football players that has a snowball's chance in hell of beating out the NFL-sponsored game.

 

3) Buy nothing at all.

 

In short, if you have the desire to play an NFL sports game, then you have no choice. Period.

 

"Meanwhile, many, and I mean, MANY other game companies can not only compare, but make far better games in other every other genre....and you're apparently happy that a slew of crappy sports games allows EA the power to snuff them out whenever it pleases. After all, if they had only had the sense to stake out their own unimaginative, reliable money-farm rather than concentrating on making new games with new designs that take extra time and money, they'd still be in business....right?"

 

The more you argue about your opinion about how 'crappy' EA games are; the more I'll tune you out as someone who is only attacking them not based on relaity but on your silly notion that they make crappy games. When they don't. Deal with it.

 

Sorry, but I like imagination and originality in my games. Neither describes the majority of EA's product line-up. I'm happy for you that you find a different roster in the same game a transcendent step in Football gaming evolution; I don't.

 

"Then why are you whining about how people are selfish for worrying only about the consumers, of which you are a part? Yes, they're selfish; that's the way the whole freaking system works."

 

That's because when people argue against monopilies they make it out to be a morlaity case when it is simply their selfishness. I point out the fact that it's all about selfishness on the consumer's part including my own. 

 

Well, congratulations. That justifies your complete failure of self-interest completely; you may now continue rooting for a turn of events which does not work in your favor without shame (or reward, for that matter.) It doesn't make you immoral; it just makes you an idiot.

 

If that's the 'way ther system workjs" then you should admit that EA has done absolutely nothingw rong. theya re looking out for thier best interest. As they should. Period.

 

That's fine, if you're viewing things as a laissez faire capitalist. So why are YOU looking out for their best interest instead of your own? Again, in a system where everything is based around enlightened self-interest, your cheerleading for a group that wants to limit your options seems more than a little foolish.

 

Of course, even as a monoply, it's not in their best interets to make crappy game after crappy game. People  will notice, AND they will stop buying.

 

Crappy games? No. People would stop buying, you're right.

 

Games that are technically good, but uninspired, take no risks, and marketed only to the mass audience? Much more likely.

 

As a consumer, you are failing in your role spectactularly if you enjoy the idea of your options being narrowed.