gamepolitics: EDITORIAL: Madden Monopoly Deserves Scrutiny From Justice Department

Game Politics (

gamepolitics) wrote,
@ 2005-08-10 11:22:00

Entry tags:

anti-trust, consumers, ea, madden, monopoly

EDITORIAL: Madden Monopoly Deserves Scrutiny From Justice Department

Madden NFL 2006 from EA Sports was released this week, and gamers lined up to get their copies. It's a great game, in GP's opinion. There's a lot to love about it.

Love the new vision passing system. Love the ability to precisely locate your passes so that only your receiver can reach them. Love the new Superstar mode and all of the other cool things that already made Madden great.

But there's a dark side, too, none of which has to do with the game play. There are things you can hate.

Hate the fact that EA, the NFL, and the NFLPA got together to screw over football fans by limiting their choices to a single licensed game.

Hate the fact that the NFL2K series was forced into extinction by the lack of available NFL licensing. It was a great sports game franchise, better than Madden in the eyes of many gamers.

Hate the fact that EA Sports and developer Tiburon will have zero pressure to innovate since there can be no competition. Although GP enjoyed Madden, some reviewers, like GameSpot ("solid, if predictable") and Kotaku ("Madden = More of the same"), complained that Madden 06 is just a so-so product.

Hate the fact that Madden, without competition this year, will set you back $49.99. Last year it cost just $29.99, and the now-defunct NFL2K5 cost only $19.99. Of Madden's monopolistic sins, this is the most egregious, and probably the most interesting to government investigators, should they choose to come calling. If the franchise sells 10 million copies, that's $200 million leaving your collective pockets and making its way into EA's swelling coffers.

And folks, that is what happens to consumers in a monopoly market. You have no choices. You have no leverage. And that's why the Justice Department needs to investigate EA for anti-trust violations.

If you're having a sense of deja vu, it's because this isn't the first time GamePolitics has harped on the Madden Monopoly, and probably won't be the last. Check out our previous coverage: Reebok Case Has Implications for EA NFL Monopoly; GamePolitics Renews Call for Justice Dept. Probe

(Post a new comment)

	Disagree (Anonymous) 2005-08-10 04:25 pm UTC (link)
	Well, people have a choice. They can buy the game with it's huge price tag or choose not to buy it and hope EA lowers it's price. I could understand what you're saying if this game was a basic need like food, clothes, gasoline, housing ect. But video games aren't needed to survive, they're not a need, they are purely a want. (Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Disagree

n3m3515
2005-08-10 05:32 pm UTC (link)

I would also say that games are a luxury and not a necessity and that a probe into this matter would yield nothing. Other companies can still make the games; they just can’t use the license. There have been some games in the past that sold remarkably well in this genre that didn’t have licenses. The Winning Eleven series in modern times and Baseball Simulator 1000 from the 16but era are good examples of this.

I would agree with the Innovation argument also. Innovation is lacking across the board. This needs to change.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Disagree (Anonymous) 2005-08-10 05:34 pm UTC (link)
	BAH! from the 16but should read from the 16Bit But seriously, I do feel your frustration. I just think that the amount of effort that would go into such a probe wouldn't yield a comparable result. (Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Disagree

baldynomad
2005-08-10 05:54 pm UTC (link)

But it goes much deeper then that in the long run. EA really sounds like they are going to be a bad guy because of this. EA's aggressiveness may fiddle with the consumer market, and even competing firms. Job losses might be a result for some, & that DOES equal to a lack of food and clothes for them.

Microsoft got pinned for anti-trust stuff, didn't they? You don't HAVE to buy MS programs. They are not necessities. If they fiddle with the market, regardless if they make toy cars or real cars...

Per DM's previous notes as to what Richard Steuer's comment "was it willfully acquired or maintained? ...Conscious acts designed to further or maintain a monopoly market position will suffice -- for example, acquisitions of competitors, exclusive dealing arrangements..."

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Disagree (Anonymous) 2005-08-11 12:55 am UTC (link)
	Microsoft got pinned for anti-trust stuff, didn't they? You don't HAVE to buy MS programs. They are not necessities. If they fiddle with the market, regardless if they make toy cars or real cars... That's not true. MS lost because they FORCED users to use IE with their OS upon install. That was the key. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Disagree (Anonymous) 2005-08-11 01:54 am UTC (link)
	Microsoft lost because they forced OEMs not to bundle applications that competed with IE and WMP. They never forced users to do anything. They [i]can't[/i] force users to do anything like that. That's why nowadays you can get MusicMatch, RealPlayer or Netscape pre-installed whereas before you couldn't. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	Eh hungnhopeless 2005-08-10 05:42 pm UTC (link)
	Pro Evolution Soccer doesn't have the same licensing that the Fifa games have (Another EA game!:D), but they have very good sales, if not better than fifa. (Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Eh
(Anonymous)
2005-08-11 03:12 am UTC (link)

That's because soccer games do most of their sales in markets where having a license doesn't carry that much weight.

In the US, if you want to do anything relating to a sport, having the license of the sport's most popular league authority or one or more of its star players is pretty much crucial. Without it, your product has no credibility in the eyes of consumers.

Abroad, especially in Asia, having a license is great, but it's not required as long as the product is decent.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	Agree (Anonymous) 2005-08-10 06:00 pm UTC (link)
	I understand exactly what you mean. I certainly want options in my nfl games, and the sim-based Madden is just not my style. Companies like Midway(Known for their game quality stopping "midway" in my humble opinion) may still be releasing their games without the NFL, but it just isn't the same. (Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Agree

gamepolitics
2005-08-10 07:53 pm UTC (link)

Yeah, Midway is releasing Blitz this year, and it should be wilder than ever since they don't need to look over their shoulder and worry what the league is thinking...

Still. You need the licensing to really capture the attention of fans/gamers.

I remember as a kid we had an electric football game that had plain-colored players. Then we got one that had players hand-painted in NFL team uniforms. THAT was SO MUCH more fun...

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Could this have some positive side effects?
(Anonymous)
2005-08-10 06:01 pm UTC (link)

I agree that it is a shame that it is an exclusive contract for several years. I plan on only buying Madden games as used titles until this blows over.

I also think that some good can come out of this, after all some of my favorite wrestling games have nothing to do with the WWE.

A fictional football league could allow players to edit rules. Imagine a single video game that would allow a player to re-create rules to resemble, XFL, College Football, NFL rules, Street Rules or any combination there of (I get chills just thinking about it). Innovation comes out of necessity. We may see some great games if game companies are willing to put out games without the NFL Logo.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	If you were wondering . . . (Anonymous) 2005-08-10 06:26 pm UTC (link)
	The wrestling games that I enjoyed that are not WWE are Rumble Roses (Very Cheesy, but fun), Def Jam: Fight for NY (great story mode), and the very old Tecmo World Wrestling. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	I just hope against hope... ferrarimanf355 2005-08-10 06:28 pm UTC (link)
	... that Blitz: The League is a great football game. From what I hear, it's a return to the Blitz games of old, with a little bit of the ultra-violence put in. I just hope that it's great. (Reply to this)

Also disagreeing
(Anonymous)
2005-08-10 06:28 pm UTC (link)

Monopoly talk in this case is just silliness.

The NFL is under no obligation to license multiple parties to product NFL games any more than the Governator is obligated to license other games to offset the current "monopoly" on his likeness held by the Terminator games. There is no rational argument to support the idea that there should be competing products WITHIN a brand.

The innovation argument doesn't hold water either. It's a football game any progress is going to be iterative.

If the justice dept were to start wasting tax payer money on a non-issue like this, people should be fired.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: Also disagreeing (Anonymous) 2005-08-10 07:21 pm UTC (link)
	Agreed. Well put. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Also disagreeing gamepolitics 2005-08-10 07:54 pm UTC (link)
	I hear you and you can certainly make that argument. I would encourage you to read the earlier story that is linked at the bottom of today's piece and see what you think. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Also disagreeing
(Anonymous)
2005-08-10 08:06 pm UTC (link)

I think Moran's ruling is going to be overturned. It's counter to common sense. If a ruling that idiotic holds up, then any company that licenses their brand to a 3rd party would be obligated to offer it to others as well which robs them of the ability to control their brand, diluting the brand's value.

The article by Steuer doesn't provide much support for the idea IMO. If you can slice a "relevant market" down to such a small slice as "NFL licensed football video games", then we're opening the doors to the asylum. What's next, action against McDonald's for their monopoly in "Clown branded quick service food"?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Also disagreeing

gamepolitics
2005-08-10 08:15 pm UTC (link)

There has been a lot of back-and-forth about the market issue, and whether NFL games could constitute one. The Reebok case would seem to indicate that it could. Obviously, it is subject to challenge, as you say.

There is a long-standing history of multiple licensees in the market for NFL games, as many as 5 or 6 different titles in some years.

What's more, it could be argued that EA made this move only after 2K forced them to cut their prices. After two years of competing with NFL2K's $19.99 price, EA makes this move and the price is instantly back to $49.99.

The loser, obviously, is the consumer, several hundred million dollars' worth...

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Also disagreeing
(Anonymous)
2005-08-10 08:22 pm UTC (link)

Ok, first off I don't agree that the consumer is losing here. There are NFL games available for those folks actually compelled to buy one each year. There is a splendid opportunity for non-licesned games to be developed that are not under the control of the NFL which imposes limitations on developer creativity.

The Reebok case doesn't indicated anything yet. It managed to avoid being thrown out immediately. That's not too hard, even Foaming Jack gets in to court occasionally. There's a LONG road before the Reebok case can be said to indicated anything.

The history of multiple NFL licenses doesn't have any bearing on the situation. A company isn't required to do business as it did yesterday. Many of the games produced in the past have quite frankly sucked and it would be easy to make the argument that it's better for the NFL to have a single licensee to protect the strength of their brand.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Also disagreeing

gamepolitics
2005-08-10 08:31 pm UTC (link)

Larry? Larry Probst? Is that you?

How can the consumer *not* be losing here? It's $20-30 more to play this year than last...

A non-licensed pro football game? Yuch... like trying to sell a car without A/C or a radio... doubt any company will invest development resources in a non-licensed game. Midway already had a lot of those assets in place, hence Blitz.

All of your arguments are defensible and all are slanted towards EA's basic position. The other side is arguable. A DOJ look-see might prove valuable to consumers. And to a few dozen lawyers as well...

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Also disagreeing
(Anonymous)
2005-08-10 08:54 pm UTC (link)

You know Dennis, your recurrent need to try and brand anyone who disagrees with you as an interested party ("How's the whether there in Scottland?", etc...) is pretty sad. (Of course a lot of your commentary is pretty sad, but you could try actually reading what the person posts. Just wishfull thinking on my part I guess, forget I mentioned it.)

>> A non-licensed pro football game? Yuch...

If the important thing in a football game is the license, then I guess you're just screwed. As far as the football videogame market though, there is plenty of opportunity for competing products that compete on their merit, not their brand.

The NFL is not required to license their brand to multiple companies. Period. No company is required to license their brand to multiple parties to create artificial competition. Sure, I'd love to have my choice of 25 different Buffy the Vampire Slayer games a year, but Wheedon is under no obligation to dilute his brand to achieve that.

>> All of your arguments are defensible and all are slanted towards EA's basic position.

No... I don't know or CARE what "EA's position" is. I no fan of EA (They make wretched games these days) and I despise football.

However the idea that the NFL cannot enter into an alliance with a single company to produce videogames for THEIR BRAND is simply rediculous on it's face. A brand is not a "Market". Nothing is prohibiting competing football products from being designed, sold or purchased. A brand is a powerful business asset that costs money to build and maintain. Companies are entitled to excercise control in how their brand is used.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Also disagreeing

gamepolitics
2005-08-10 09:06 pm UTC (link)

Ah, don't mistake my slightly off sense of humor for disparagement. I'm okay with you disagreeing. In fact it would be rather dull around here if we were all in lock step. And if you were the recipient of my Scotland crack too, well, I can only say that you argue your points so strongly that you would make a good advocate...

I think the NFL is less at fault here than EA. It was EA that entered the exclusive arrangement in order to stifle competition. I'm sure the NFL is making as good money or even better from EA on the exclusive.

That being said, neither the NFL or the NFLPA showed any appreciation for the desires of their base of video game consumers.

And that's the word I keep coming back to: consumers. The anti-trust laws are designed to protect the consumers in large part. In spirit, consumers are clearly the losers here: less choices in their NFL game, and an individual cost increase of 67% for Madden owners and over 100% for NFL2K owners.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Also disagreeing
(Anonymous)
2005-08-11 03:15 am UTC (link)

Ok, a wierd sense of humor I can cope with. Arguing is one of my (many) hobbies. I'm used to seriously dedicated debators so I tend to get a bit... over enthusiastic.

I don't think it's a question of fault in this case. The NFL seemed somewhat predisposed to an exclusive license after the "football violence" controversy by the last Midway game. They had too many licensees to oversee sucessfully, so it's not much of a suprise that they narrowed the field a little. It must be kept in mind that they will be held accountable for the content of any and all games that are associated with their brand. It makes sense to narrow the field. In any case, it takes two parties to enter into an agreement of that sort, and the NFL is clearly the one with the leverage.

I am sympathetic to the desires of consumers, but to pretend that there should be competition within the narrow "market" of "NFL Licensed Video Games" goes beyond being "Pro-Consumer" into the realm of sheer fantasy. If a companies brand comes at too high a price or too low a quality, you go elsewhere. Enforcing an artificial level of competition within a privately owned brand is not pro-consumer, it's anti-capitalism.

If it could be shown that EA is working to snuff out non-NFL branded football games, I'm with ya. But all you've complained about so far are basic business practices.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Jack did you see this? (Anonymous) 2005-08-11 12:43 pm UTC (link)
	Two people with strongly opposing viewpoints can discuss their views in a polite and rational way. It makes me proud to be a gamer. :) FYI: great point/counterpoint discussion. You have both managed to bring up very valid points, thanks. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	As much as I want to hate EA for this... (Anonymous) 2005-08-10 10:27 pm UTC (link)
	...the original idea wasn't theirs. The 2K Games folks also bid on the rights, but not enough. This generated with the NFL, and after EA got this, they sucked up NCAA & Arena (who cares about that). And for the record, I haven't bought a Madden game in about 3 console generations. I was a major fan of 2k5. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: As much as I want to hate EA for this... gamepolitics 2005-08-11 03:28 pm UTC (link)
	true. and 2K has locked a 3rd party exclusive on baseball. (which is kind of a weird exclusivity...) (Reply to this) (Parent)

	my response to the agreement (Anonymous) 2005-08-11 02:46 am UTC (link)
	when word first broke on this, i decided my nfl collection ends with nfl 2k5. granted, i was never one to run out and buy a new nfl game every year, but having NO choice anymore gives me NO incentive to buy. (Reply to this)

phoenixzero
2005-08-11 10:14 am UTC (link)

It's not like EA went to the NFL, the NFL came to EA and several other companies in putting their exclusive rights up for bid, EA bid the most and did have the most of offer the NFL and that's why they got it. So if you want put the blame anywhere, put it on the NFL, EA did what they did so they could keep making their games. While I think it was a terrible move on the NFL's part they knew that EA/Madden is where the money is at.

I'm not of fan of EA but I can't fully blame them for this. But the lack of competition I think is going to hurt both EA and the NFL in the long run.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	This is a good thing. (Anonymous) 2005-08-11 12:13 pm UTC (link)
	This is a good thing - The less Football games the better IMO. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	There is only one solution... (Anonymous) 2005-08-11 04:40 pm UTC (link)
	...bring back Cyberball! (Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: There is only one solution... (Anonymous) 2005-08-11 06:12 pm UTC (link)
	Cyberball would rule on this generation of hardware :D -JB (Reply to this) (Parent)

	Whoa, Whoa, Whoa... (Anonymous) 2005-08-11 05:57 pm UTC (link)
	Dude, they totally need to bring back the Mutant League Franchise. Totally. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: Whoa, Whoa, Whoa... rangoth 2005-08-13 02:54 am UTC (link)
	Hell Yeah! (Reply to this) (Parent)

(Anonymous)
2005-08-11 06:43 pm UTC (link)

Judge Moran's ruling is simply that American Needle's case survives early dismissal and that the parties can proceed with pre-trial work (yay, discovery...). There is still a high likelihood that AN's case will be dismissed well before any possible trial occurs. And even if it goes to trial, there's a high likelihood of Reebok winning.
But still, this is a case worth watching as exclusive licensing deals are common. If AN does indeed win, EA's deals will be subject to attack. However, I would expect lobbyists to push congress hard for an amendment to the Sherman Act exempting exclusive licensing deals from antitrust scrutiny.

(Reply to this)

Agree

rangoth
2005-08-13 02:54 am UTC (link)

It is my hope that eventually this strong-arm tactic that EA is taking with the industry will come and bite them in the ass. Both hardware & software companies need to begin listening to the gamer and stop telling developers and gamers what they want and *listen* to what they want. While EA does have a Monopoly, I will be tossing my $50 behind Blitz when it comes out. I normally don't buy football games, but Blitz this year looks like a game I will play.

Perhaps this is all part of the gaming industry just growing up? We must experience our own growing pains just like every other industry. Remember, the video game industry is barely 30 years old.

(Reply to this)

	notapipe 2005-08-13 08:12 am UTC (link)
	Of course, this might not work for the demise of MVP Baseball, given Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore, Inc. v. National Baseball Clubs and Toolson v. New York Yankees, Inc. Since in them the SCOTUS hold that baseball isn't covered by the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. (Reply to this) (Thread)

gamepolitics
2005-08-13 08:20 am UTC (link)

Well, yes, MLB has this rather bizarre antitrust exemption and has for many decades...

Periodically Congress threatens to review that exemption when they want to beat MLB up about something. I believe it came up again when they held the Rafael Palmiero Lie-fest, oops, I mean the steroid hearings during the past off-season.

They never get around to seriously reviewing the exemption, though.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	notapipe 2005-08-13 04:36 pm UTC (link)
	Yeah, but I believe them when they say they'll get around to seriously reviewing the exemption if George Soros buys the Nationals. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	Madden360 '06-8.0 on ign monopolion 2005-11-16 06:55 am UTC (link)
	Here we are, in the next generation, and all EA could get from their MONOPOLY on football gaming is an 8.0. What a travesty. With allegedly 200+ people working on the game, this is the best they could do. -Santoro monopolion (Reply to this)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login or password? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…

About

Help

Get Involved

Legal

Store

LJ Labs