Well I don't see the flaw in not purchasing something that you don't like, whether it's the product or the rules you have to obey when you purchase it.

That is the flaw. It's not necessarily the product people don't like. It's the service. Because the two are inherently linked here, one is forced to pass up on a product they might like and want because of the service behind the product. And in many cases there are no adequate substitutes. What do you buy if you want a game like Mass Effect but won't get it because you don't like EA? There's not really another game like it. That's why I compared it to a monopoly. I know there isn't a monopoly here in the strict economic sense, but there is no substitute for these games.

This is in contrast to the Walmart example, where the product can be purchased elsewhere if one does not like Walmart's service. That's why the comparison is flawed.

"Don't like it, don't buy it" means you're significantly limiting the games you can buy. EA knows it. That's why they get away with what they do and still sell a lot of games. Not everyone who disagrees with them can still pass the games up.

How about this one?

EA games themselves are a market. Why can't they be? Their exclusive control of that market makes possible their manipulation of prices via DLC.

It's not a true monopoly. That's why I said it's "essentially" one. It has enough elements of a monopoly to fit in my example, which is only in context to the Walmart/Target comparison.

Sure there is. It's called "other games".

Let's say McDonald's has the hamburger you want to eat for lunch. You just absolutely love the thought of that exact McDonald's cheeseburger. You go to McDonald's (EA) and find out in order to have the cheeseburger (game), you have to eat it at McDonald's (Origin). And it will be an extra $0.50 for pickles even though they used to be free (DLC).


You then have the options of:

1) Going to Burger King (another publisher) to get a burger.
2) Saying "I really want this here tasty burger."

"But dammit," you say, "Burger King doesn't make exactly the same burger I want!"

"That's not McDonald's problem." I say.

This isn't a matter of "exact same". It's a matter of similarity at all. At least Burger King and McDonalds both have burgers. What do you buy if you want a Mass Effect game? Or a Madden game? In some cases, like Battlefield, there are reasonable substitutes. In others, there aren't. EA would throw a legal fit if there were.

We apparently both have different standards for similarity. Since this is a subjective matter, there's no point arguing it further.

So your attitude if someone asks you for a game "similar" to Mass Effect, you tell them "There is none. There is only Mass Effect." I bet you're real fun at parties.

The problem is on YOUR end, not EA's.


So EA and Bethesda don't both have games?

Hey man, I want a game like Mass Effect but don't like EA. What should I get?

They don't both have games of the same style or genre.

But hey, if you really want Madden but can settle for Fallout, more power to you.

Don't know. Never had any interest in Mass Effect.


So there's no other publisher out there in the whole wide world that serves the same genres or styles as EA? I find this... hard to fathom.


If you want Madden, you can "settle" for any of the other number of football games out there. It's a comparable product.

The fact that it's not what YOU want, as I said, is YOUR problem.

You said Bethesda. There are other publishers which make games similar to some of EA's games, but a lot of them are incomparable.

Madden and NCAA Football are the only (at least "realistic") football series which are now published to my knowledge. Both are published by EA.

There are some old series, but if Jonahirt is any indication, many people must have the newest iteration. EA is the only option.

You can use that "YOU want it, it's YOUR problem" argument for anything. It's a cop out. You aren't actually addressing my argument with it, and it certainly doesn't explain away the difference between Walmart/Target and EA (I hate to repeat myself again, but that's my whole point and you keep missing it).

No, I didn't address your Walmart/Target statements, because they held no bearings on what I've said.

You said that EA wasn't operating within a "free market" and that they have a "monopoly" on their games.

Both statements are, at best, absurd.


Oh, I'm sorry. Should I have listed out every single other publisher out there so you couldn't squabble over semantics instead of the issue at hand?

The U.S. market isn't a free market by any definition. It's a regulated market. So no, it isn't operating in a free market.

I explained my monopoly comment. There are no alternatives to EA, so they're essentially a monopoly in this example.

I won't make any more posts. It's obvious you aren't reading them.

Bummer that this thread isn't about Atari filing for bankruptcy anymore

Like others have said, its not really surprising seeing the road they were heading down. I can't say I feel bad for them, its not like they've done anything decent in a long time Good companies will make money, poor companies will lose money. Pretty simple.(Good and poor in terms of making money, I should add)

You seem to, based on an earlier post in this thread, seem to have a skewed definition of free market as well. I never addressed that because you edited it in and I didn't bother to go back and read it.


And I explained earlier that the word "monopoly" has a very specific meaning. As Louis C.K. says, you have to stop going straight to the top shelf with your words. Use the appropriate one.

Do they have "control" of their games? Absolutely. That's the way it should be. It's not broken.

There are PLENTY of alternatives to EA. The fact that you don't accept those alternatives, once again, is YOUR problem (which, by the way, isn't a cop-out - it's the truth).


And the world would thank you.

For a Mass Effect there is Binary Domain, Alpha Protocol, Deus Ex: Human Revolution and probably the upcoming Cyperpunk 2077.
Madden type of games: Blitz: The League, All-Pro Football 2k8 and Maximum Football.
Battlefield type of games: Planetside, MAG and Homefront.

Close enough I'd say.

True, and it can be consider a form of evolution where weaker companies die out while the stronger ones survive. New companies that emerge, if that happens in this economy, will probably be stronger since they can learn from past mistakes of others.

I wander if it did happen would it kill hope for next gen Playstation and or X-Box. It probably won't but it will delay it for quite some time (longer then most PS4 and New X-box hopers are wanting).

I imagine that the exact opposite would happen. They would push it out as soon as possible.

EA generates a ton of revenue, but their operating costs are extremely high, which means their profit margins are very small (by industry standards) even during good times. This makes them quite vulnerable when industry sales take a downturn, which is what is happening right now.

A $381 million loss hurts, but EA could withstand a couple-three quarters of it before being in serious trouble - the company's still worth over $4 billion at its current stock price of $14.46. They definitely need to look at this as a major alarm bell, though.

As far as Atari goes, it's really been nothing more than a name for many years now, bouncing from buyer to buyer with a catalog of titles that no one really knows or cares much about any more.

And I bet they're going to have a s{beep} full problems due to lack of proper hardware and software testing. It would make a bad situation worse if the video game market crashes again...and this time no Nintendo to save them. They played their card already by releasing the Wii U. Y'up no more Phoenix this time, if the market crashes again Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft better have some kind of safty net just incase the "turd hits the fan" .

No... there is another.

Indies - especially with Kickstarter and new initiatives like Steam's Greenlight.

Why would the video game market even crash again? The market was worth about $10 billion in 1983. It's now worth $65 billion. And it's not all dependent on one publisher, like it was back when the entire market was essentially Atari.

The only reason that the market would crash is if the entire world economy took another downturn, which or may not happen. But I don't think there's any inherent weakness in the video game market at this time.

Indies games are more for the download market---that's not going to be hurt to bad if the VG market crashes, I'm talking more on the lines of home consule market. If a VG market does crash a lot of VG companies like Capcom, EA, Nintendo, Playstation and Microsoft will be hit hard. It might delay or pre-maturely push for newer consules that might not be properly tested. Then those who have been waiting for PS4 or 720 get their systems and it's either crashing like a drunk pilot, or has no different graphics then the current systems do, Sony and Microsft will be hurting like man passing a kidney stone.

So confused, We're talking about casuals ruining gaming. EA hate and a second video game crash?

OT: Atari ain't like the Atari back in whenever they were good, Hell I thought they were already out of business, but i guess not (yet).

and the other topics:
Casuals aren't ruining gaming, that all is just an angry excuse by angry hardcoe fans.
EA makes/publishes games many people like to play, is that really a hard concept to understand?
And there isn't going to crash again, Gaming is so mainstream and common its not going away. Hell its bigger than the movie industry right now.

I agree that a "crash" like what happened in 1983 is unlikely. However, the traditional video game market is in a decline these days, due to increased competition from games for mobile devices, and also due to the simple fact that economic times are still quite bad, and a lot of people just don't have 60 dollars to spare to lay down for the latest AAA title. So what they do instead is either replay old games they have, or pick up used copies of already released titles (or download them at steep discounts) that they haven't played yet.

What you're more likely going to see is more and more small and/or poorly managed outfits (like Atari and THQ) go under and offer their IPs at bankruptcy sales. Some of these will be picked up by the stronger and better managed companies, while some will just die. Not a crash as much as a contraction.

I agree with this, but I'd like to add that that's not a necessarily bad thing. There are a ton of publishers and developers in the business right now that are not turning over a profit, and eventually the market will contract after it expanded following the release of the current generation of consoles. A market contraction will eventually mean an evening out in the amount of competition. That's kind of what's happening now, with all those tried-and-true formula games that come out every year.

I swear, I can barely take the rest of your post seriously with that avatar, Dirtymutant.


I wouldn't say casual gaming is "ruining" the gaming market, but they do have a profound influence on it. When the choice comes down to some rich detailed content or content for action, they'll more than likely go with action since it'll appeal to the "wider" audience.


It does seem that Desktop and Console gaming is on the decline due to mobile devices. While technology isn't there "just yet" for higher end game, that will fade away in three or four years due to technology. Although we are reaching a point where Moore's law may no longer be viable, we will see an even heavier competing format for mobile games. Nvidia's new gaming unit is probably just the tip of the iceberg.

With Atari's Bankruptcy filing, and THQ takin a dirt nap, I do wonder what other companies will be on the horizon. Still hope EA goes down the tubes. They just butcher games under their control. *Not fact, not proven, just my personal opinion*