Again, when a competitor lowers a price you often do so to match, that does not mean that's the new price from there on out nor does it mean that you've "exposed" yourself to being able to sell it at a lower price. EA lowered the price simply because they had to in order to compete. That may mean they were making very little to no money on Madden but had to lower the price to retain customers. This is no different than Amazon lowering the price on their video games to compete when Best Buy has a sale in order not to lose customers.
The real crux of the argument is that the price went back up after the competition was eliminated. However EA did not eliminate the competition, they had no way to do so on their own, the NFL eliminated it. And it makes perfect business sense to raise the price to the industry accepted standard once there was no reason to keep the price artificially low, since there was not a direct reason to keep it low. EA did not raise it above the industry accepted standard.
There simply is no blame here to be had on EA's part, they used sound business principles in how they lowered and raised their prices. Sure one can argue that theres an appearance here of some sort of impropriety but an analysis of the situation shows that the NFL simply chose to go with an exclusive agreement and thus the entire "competition eliminated directly relates to the price change" is not a valid argument.

Comment