That Wily Scoundrel John Madden Has Robbed Gamers Of $1 Billion, Economist Says
Economist Jeffrey MacKie-Mason says Electronic Arts' NFL monopoly has cost gamers $926 million over the last four years. Because the game publisher has an exclusive deal with the NFL to use teams, stadiums and player likenesses, no competitor can line up on level ground, and thus EA can charge $60 for its Xbox 360 and PS3 versions of the game every year, GamePolitics reports:
MacKie-Mason arrived at the eye-popping figures using an estimated overcharge percentage that ranged from 50% to 66% for the 30.04 million units of Madden sold during the 2006-2009. He writes:
"When Take-Two was able to compete unhindered, Madden NFL's competitive price was in the range of $19.95 to $29.95. I assume for this exercise that these would have been Madden's prices but for the alleged [monopolistic] acts."
MacKie-Mason's reasoning may be flawed — after all, EA faces competition in its NBA and NHL titles yet still charges $60 — but I support his cause because it sucks that new Tecmo Bowl games aren't allowed to simulate the Arizona Cardinals' dominating air attack.
Economist: EA's Madden Monopoly Cost Gamers Up To $926 Million [GamePolitics, via Kotaku]
(Photo: geognerd)
Post a comment
Comments:
"and thus EA can charge $60 for its Xbox 360 and PS3 versions of the game every year, GamePolitics reports:"
No EA can charge that much for the game because all the publishers colluded together to convince the public that "next gen" means you can charge 60 bucks for a game that used to be 50.
People say this is a bad thing because it causes EA to get lazy and fails to innovate. I say what is there left to innovate to an American Football game? Sure I would love to see a tighter game with less bugs and run smoother but as far as innovation goes I can't really see it needing to go anywhere else.
I do miss the ESPN football, it was a great product especially for the price. I also almost wish they just kept the 2005 version of Madden and just updated the rosters. Between Hitstick and all this other garbage it's barely even football anymore. They still can't get the unstoppable plays fixed and thats been a problem going since '95 when you kicked off ran down the field and caught the ball before it even landed. Haven't bought a Madden game in 8 years because its the same garbage year after year. I will admit to renting them though. And another side note. Maybe someone can tell me why it was in SNES i could have 8 players and ten years later I can barely get 4 on the same console?!
It's more expensive this gen to make games, $20 - $30 would not apply.
Character models are more detailed, more complex AI, etc. So more people, and more time, are spent thus it's more expensive.
$60 worth? I don't know, but I know it's more expensive to make then back when the prices were $20 - $30.
@rushevents: No one is saying they can't; the article is suggesting that they shouldn't because it's a raw deal for consumers.
And Madden is by no means a model game franchise. There are still embarrassing bugs in the game that haven't been fixed for years. I would much rather have a choice and there's nothing wrong in telling the NFL that they are doing wrong by their fans. Just look how good the Sega 2k NBA game has gotten.
@Jim Topoleski: I still remember when N64 first came out I paid close to $70 bucks to buy Wayne Gretzky hockey the day it came out because that was "next-gen". Lousy game now is worth like 2 bucks lol. Oh the days when 64-bit was King.
@Jim Topoleski: So true. It's so freakin' rare to see a new game come out for under $60 on the PS3/360. The $50 new releases are oddly sometimes the "budget" games.
You understand that development costs have gone up by FAR more than 20% this generation, right?
EA wouldn't charge less than $60 even if they had competition. People think they would have been forced to because their competitor (2k Sports) was selling new releases at bargain bin prices, but even 2k's own recent non-licensed football game cost $60.
The other argument is that lack of competition has allowed EA to stop improving the game, but that hasn't been the case either.
Yeah, I'd like to see someone challenge EA, but this article has it all wrong.
It's a shame the other game development companies have decided they can't compete without the licensing. While I won't question their market research, I at least would rather play a better football game than worry about it having up-to-date rosters and player images. I used to care about rosters 10 years ago, but I don't anymore.
Usually, when I shell out for a sports game, I buy the one that came out the previous year for $10 or $20.
The point he makes doesn't flesh out because 2KSports selling their games at $20 was a single-season effort to get more exposure to their games, done right before the launch of the "next generation" of consoles, at which point they would go to the regular price. If 2KSports had any intention of leaving their games at $20, then they would have the following year with the rest of their games, which did not happen, they went back up to $50 and $60 respectively -- even the games that they held semi-exclusive licenses for (MLB 2K5 was $20, MLB 2K6 was $60, even though 2K Sports was the only 3rd party license holder of the MLB).
Further, the $20 pricetag is what drove the NFL to reconsider an exclusive license, because they consider their product to be a "premium" product. At least, that's what an EA guy told me 3 - 4 years ago... that it put the deal back on the table. Whether that was just nonsense or not, I'm not sure, but I had no reason to believe he was lying at the time.
I find it funny how everyone complains about $60 games nowadays. I remember spending about that much to acquire a brand new copy of Goldeneye for the N64 all those years ago. Adjusted for electronics inflation, that would probably be somewhere in the neighborhood of $80-100 easy.
What we gamers have today is super sick and real graphics, more expansive worlds, realistic speech, and broadband internet connections. Yet, the price of games has actually gone down.
Granted, I would not pay $60 for a new game, mostly because my current budget doesn't allow it, but that doesn't mean the game companies don't have the right to charge that much for "early adopters", just like every other item in the electronics world...
@nato0519:
Hell, I paid around $70 for Madden 94 on the SNES. Those cartridges were expensive to produce, that's why the games cost so much. Switching to optical media dramatically reduced the cost to produce each unit, but the switch to 3D and the increasingly higher resolution of the graphics makes it substantially more expensive to develop the games. In the days of Atari a game could be developed by a single guy. Now they're developed by teams of hundreds, and a huge portion of the team is the artists.
I think it's funny when gamers complain about how much games cost, because they cost about the same now as they did 15 years ago, even without considering inflation.
Yes, I remember after the initial news about the deal everyone was complaining that EA screwed everyone, then it was revealed that it was the NFL who approached EA with the exclusivity offer.
It's kind of sad, when I was a kid there were a lot of unlicensed sports games that sold well. We didn't need the right team names and player names to enjoy a game. Baseball is baseball and football is football. The joy was in playing the game, not in playing as your favorite player. Licenses can add to the enjoyment, but now it has become a necessity.
@Cant_stop_the_rock: So how much have those costs gone up? I didn't know this info was supposed to be common knowledge...
I agree that EA has riped gamers off, but not for the same reasons as the article.
This is basically nothing but a monopoly at work, allowing EA to offer an inferior product. My husband and I used to be all over 2K/ESPN football - after the first Madden-only year, we gave up on football games.
It's a shame that because EA has the deepest pockets that they can get anything they want.
I would have to disagree with the OP. I would take into account that the core football game hasn't changed in 20 years. Tecmo Superbowl has been around since 1991 and has just as much strategy and fun as the newest 2010 Madden.
@Jim Topoleski: Actually, video games haven't adjusted for inflation like other products have, so really it's not that bad. It's more that they convinced everyone that HD was the wave of the future (which it is), but left out that better graphics take longer to make, and artists don't work for free.
Hell $60 is what I paid for Flight Simulator for my Commodore 64. Games cost a hell of a lot to make in case anyone missed that memo. You can vote with your wallet if you think $60 is out of line.
All things considered, games are one of the least expensive forms of entertainment per hour.
@Riff-Raff: There was a very short period of time where games were that expensive. *I* remember spending $90 for a copy of Final Fantasy 3 (SNES) when it came out - I don't know how exactly inflation changes that number, but it would be far more now.
When the special edition Lunar 1 and 2 remakes came out, they were around $60.
$60 for a new game now is outrageous, no matter how you look at it, which is why the used game business is so hot. Computer games are just as cutting-edge as console games, but they still premier at $50 or less. There's no reason for next-gen games to be $60 except greed.
Though wouldn't this be a "monopoly" of sorts? that might be a better angle to try.
Competition is good. NFL 2k was a better franchise and it made Madden step up their game. Now what is making them give a rats ass?
@rpm773: $60 for a roster update that would take milliseconds over Xbox Live? Sounds like a cushy business deal to me.
They can charge that much because people will pay that much. If you think the price is too high - DON'T BUY IT.
@rpm773: i don't think it was the game cos. that decided they couldn't compete. it was the fans. unfortunately, madden is by & far one of the best selling titles every year. add the marketing blitz of the nfl & it's virtually impossible to compete.
it's not like no one has tried - you have that "blitz" game that 2 or 3 of us played & bobblehead football or whatever. 2k released that bomb "all-pro" a couple years back. others have tried & others have failed.
@MichaelBrazell: The Internets : Where faceless posters have all kinds of insider information that even the news organizations don't.
ok, but as much as EA pisses me off, is it really their deal? it's NFL that's taking advantage of their special priveledges in the law, raking other companies (& thereby customers) with their ridiculous exclusivity deals & utilizing government protection & funding to further the economic goals of a few absurdly rich individuals.
EA is a sideshow here. if your problem is the monopoly, break it (& when i say monopoly, i ain't talking EA here).
Every game charges 60 bucks. This is one of the most groundless suits ever. Someone needs to point out to the judge that 60 dollars is the price of all games.
I would have expected a class action lawsuit from those that paid 60 dollars for Lost Via Domus. But to say madden would be cheaper than the standard price of all games makes no sense. If they charge 60 dollars for Lost, it's pretty damn clear that is a standard everyone is following no matter what.
If you think about it though, Madden games are the quickest games that loose the most value. If you don't mind waiting a year, you can always pick the game up for $5 somewhere, no other video game does that.
Ea can charge 60 dollars a game because they can. People arent going to band together and not buy madden 10
@Tiber: True, back in NES days (the original 8-bit Nintendo) games were around $50, and if you compare them to today's video games, it's funny.
Bottom line is you pay more for new technology. You want your games cheap? Play games that are ten years old. Otherwise, stop whining.
When did Madden EVER cost between 20-30 dollars?
Maybe for portable versions or the PS2 version after the PS3 was released, but as far as I can remember, the current-gen EA sports games have always gone for what is considered normal MSRP for a new video game, which in this gen, is $60.
Microsoft owns exclusive rights to Halo. Is that what "allows" them to charge $60 for it? I'm not in favor of the NFL/EA exclusivity agreement, but this particular argument is silly and full of holes.
@Cant_stop_the_rock: I *still* enjoy playing the original NES games called "Ice Hockey" with friends from my generation who grew up with it. You can barely make out the players because they're so pixellated.
@GuinevereRucker: This is the reason why I don't have a console more advanced than a Dreamcast. I just can't afford to keep up with the new technology.
I also don't understand people who buy new madden games every single year. Are they really that different from year to year to keep plopping down 60 bucks for basically the same game with slightly better graphics and different players?
Well- you're an idiot if you spend $60 on the new Madden game- just wait 'til the new Madden is released and buy last year's version for $20 or less. Hell- I got mine for $12.
I recently decided I wanted to buy Tiger Woods Golf for Wii-- I coulda bought the brand new one for $50, or buy 2008 for $15-- I bought 2008 for $15. Seems to work just fine.
@jaya9581: Just wait a year and buy the same game for $40 less. Like ALL technology, you pay for things that are new and cutting edge.
Don't like it, don't buy it. The fact is, companies charge what people will pay for new games, $90 for FF3 or $120 for a sports game or whatever. These costs reflect not only fees and development, but supply and demand.
@nato0519: How dare you sir. Wayne Gretzky's 3D Hockey is a game I would gladly pay up to $4 for now. Absolute classic.
I'm going to say that the professor is a member of the communist party.
/birch'd
Seriously, though, EA should charge whatever the fuck they want. It's their game. It's their property. The NFL logos are the NFL properties. None of this is mine unless I want to pay for it.
@I_have_something_to_say: I completely agree with this. Those of us who paid $50 back in the NES/Atari/Sega/Commodore days think nothing of paying $60 for a game with graphics 60 times better.
I bet it's mostly the kids who want games for cheap who are whining about this.
Every person who buys a ticket pays a high price tag because of player wages, owner profits etc. Just stands to reason that Madden costs what it does. I'm sure EA Sports payed dearly.
It's the the best football game. If you want the best...you pay.
"Buying quality is like buying oats. If you want good fresh oats, you must pay a fair price. If you can be happy with oats that have already gone through the horse...they come a lot cheaper."
I was hoping someone would make this comment! This "research" is bullshit. Madden, even in it's original form didn't cost $20. Maybe $30 but that was in 1992. The games have always been upwards of $40 or more and the new consoles require more time and people to make games so the cost of games is increasing. All next-gen titles are $59.99 if they're any good.
Maybe the author is referring to the time when NFL 2K was trying to compete and sold their game for $20. The only reason they were selling it for $20 was to try and capture market-share away from EA. If they had succeeded, the price of the game would have gone up accordingly.
Mackie-Mason is just wrong about pretty much everything.
@nato0519: I believe there are sites (which I can't get to from work) where you can do just that for the older Madden games. I've even seen the classic Madden 93 game with modern players (as in, someone updated the ROM to play on SNES9x or whatever the Genesis emulator is).
When did Madden ever cost between 20-30 bucks? I've been screwed every year.
A $60 video game from 1982 would cost $132.17 today according to Westegg.com's infaltion calculator. Put another way, that $60.00 game only cost $27.24 in 1982 dollars. Games are cheaper than ever after inflation. Now, whether you upgrade every year, and is it wise, is another question. Some folks buy a new care every year because they want the newest, not because they need the newest. Same thing here. If you can afford it, do it. If not, use your current Madden untill you feel you need to get a newer version. Me, when I got a Xbox360 I upgraded. Besides, I was tired of watching Barry Sanders on my old version.
@statgrad:
It's not common knowledge, but it's well known among gamers. Mr. Topoleski acts as if he has some insider knowledge of collusion, so I would expect HIM to know it. It's not collusion so much as third party publishers generally pricing their games the same as first-party games. Sometimes a publisher recognizes that their game is not worth as much as the typical game, and they price it lower. Sometimes the game is worth less but they don't recognize it, and it sells terribly until the price drops.
Development costs have doubled or tripled since last generation, from a few million dollars for a top game to $10-20 million.
"Now, the average Playstation 3 title is estimated to cost $15m."
"Halo 3, an extremely popular game produced by Microsoft, is estimated to have cost $30m"
"While production costs have tripled in recent years with the introduction of next-gen consoles, sales and revenue have hardly changed."
@mac-phisto:
Actually it's because higher resolution graphics require more effort.
@Scatter:
Does it make a difference? Are you criticizing me for using a conversational writing style on the Internet? It was a statement of fact accompanied by an implied question asking whether the guy I was responding to was aware of that fact.
@rpm773: You're in the minority. The Madden fanbase wants the most up to date roster every year and is willing to buy every year's version.
@Cant_stop_the_rock: @Cant_stop_the_rock:
Agreed. The majority of people I've talked to liked 2k's football over EA's and they wish EA didn't have exclusive rights to the players' names so they can play a GOOD football game again. I've never heard those people mention the price different back in the day, and I've never heard them say EA has gotten lazy. It's a simple matter of 2k making a better sports game than EA. Same deal with NBA Live and NBA 2k.
Sorry but am I missing something here?
The NFL is the sole owner of its image - they remind us of that at every broadcast.
Why can't they decide who can and can't present that image to gamers? Madden is the same price as most other PS3 games so I don't see the big deal. Besides I think they have done an EXCELLENT job with the franchise as evidenced by its popularity over the years.
Just another "It's not fair!" crybaby if you ask me.