If the product isn't worth to somebody the price that is being asked, then it won't sell. That's capitalism.
Fredster, I'm sorry for being short (actually that's more a figure of speach than an apology), but you drive me to it.
You make comments like that, and then turn around and suggest that boycotting a product or company is useless. My point in the original post was to increase awareness of the
price that is being asked to do business with EA. There are other costs of doing business besides the price of a product. Economists call them externalities -- in this case negative externalities (the common example would be polution created by a factory being a cost to the community, in addition to supply and demand for jobs and whatnot). The cost of supporting EA includes risking the loss of other quality companies you care about, not due to competition in a free market, but due to the wielding of monopolistic power. This is bad for consumers. It's bad for the companies that get squashed under EA's wallet and it's bad for the quality of EA's games.
So many of you say, "I don't see what the big deal is as long as EA continues to release good products." If you believe in capitalism than you believe that EA CANNOT be as effective at game development without competition. Of course EA is not going to set the price of their games higher than the laws of supply and demand will allow, but where do y'all get the idea that the supply or demand curve are static for any given product?
There are an infinite number of demand curves for any given product -- one curve for any given price. When Sega released ESPN NFL 2K for $20, the demand for Madden at the pricepoint of $50 went down to a degree that it became more profitable to sell the game at the $30 pricepoint. Any company finds the optimum pricepoint for their product. EA could make more money per unit by selling Madden for $100 a copy, but it would sell fewer copies. They could sell WAY more copies if they lowered the price to $5 per copy, but they would make so little on each sale that the overall profit would be lower. A company finds the pricepoint that will maximize profits. It was $50 for Madden until Sega released a viable alternative at a much lower price point. Now fewer people were willing to spend $50 for Madden so the demand dropped at that pricepoint and the beancounters determined that the new pricepoint for maximizing profits was $30.
This is all talking about the benefits of competition on price alone. Obviously similar rules apply to product quality.
It's your preaching to me about supply and demand and capitalism (with a subtext of "you're just a liberal so you hate business"), and then turning around a taking a whiz on supply and demand and capitalism that I find obnoxious. Don't get high and mighty about the virtues of conservative economics if you think all there is to supply and demand is, "the market supplies as much as the public demands." It's slightly more nuanced than that. The world that you advocate, where a consumer has no choices because the only option is controlled by one entity, a monopoly or a government, is decidedly NOT capitalism.