Pachter: Economist's Claims in Madden Monopoly Case Irresponsible

Pachter: Economist's Claims in Madden Monopoly Case Irresponsible

July 15, 2009

Yesterday's GamePolitics report detailing a University of Michigan economist's estimate that EA's exclusive NFL deal cost Madden buyers as much as $926 million raised a number of eyebrows, including those attached to the forehead of Michael Pachter (left).

In an e-mail exchange with GamePolitics, the Wedbush-Morgan analyst scoffed at the monopoly theory offered by Dr. Jeffrey MacKie-Mason in a filing last week with the U.S. District Court in San Francisco. MacKie-Mason was hired as an expert witness for the plaintiffs in a class-action suit filed in 2008 by a pair of gamers who allege that EA exploited its exclusive NFL deal to jack up the price of its popular Madden series.

Here's what Pachter had to say:

What kind of fool is this U of Michigan economics professor? ...Madden (according to NPD) sold 23 million units in 2006 - 2009, not the 30 million that Dr. MacKie-Mason claims... The total retail sales were $1.034 billion, meaning that EA's cut was around $800 million (retail margin is 20%).  How in the world does [MacKie-Mason] conclude that EA overcharged by more than they generated?

For the four year period, EA's average retail price was $44. For the period 1995 - 2005 (when either Sega or Take-Two provided [NFL 2K series] competition), EA generated $1.548 billion of sales on 36 million units, for an average price of $43. In other words, WITH competition, the price was $43, and WITHOUT competition, the price was $44.18...

I rarely read anything that gets me so incensed... They may have some odd estimates I'm not aware of, but based on what you printed, they should be embarrassed. You can quote me.

Here's more: Take-Two discounted [NFL 2K5] to $19.99 to gain market share, and lost their butts in the process. It's the same as a dollar menu at McDonald's that is a loss leader in order to gain share, and McDonald's hopes people buy the high-margin soft drink. There is no "right" among consumers to receive a perpetual discount just because one retailer decides to discount below cost... 

It strikes me as irresponsible that the professor would focus on the NFL exclusive as if there is some god-given right for consumers to have all intellectual property available for exploitation by any business that chooses to do so in the name of competition... 

The ONLY I/P that has ever been licensed to multiple video game parties is team sports.  The NFL, Major League Baseball, FIFA, and NCAA Basketball have all chosen to go the exclusive route for games, similar to the contracts for all movie-based games.

GP: As GamePolitics reported yesterday, MacKie-Mason acknowledges that his analysis is based on incomplete data. In a response filing, attorneys for EA (who were similarly contemptuous of MacKie-Mason's theory) agreed to furnish available documentation dating back to 2001.

Comments

Re: Pachter: Economist's Claims in Madden Monopoly Case ...

Sounds like the plainiff just lost their case, by the admission of their own expert witness.

---

Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.

Re: Pachter: Economist's Claims in Madden Monopoly Case ...

Did patcher really just try to compare licencing the names, numbers, and colors of sports to the licensing of IPs from a movie franchise (which is rarely exclusive beyond a single title anyways...)? Combine that with the fact that movie games are considered to be the bottom of the barrel in shovelware compared to the high production values of Sports simulation games, and the analogy is completely lost.

Re: Pachter: Economist's Claims in Madden Monopoly Case ...

Not to mention that the single NFL license is created as the result of a joint-selling arrangement, read lawful cartel, between separate teams.

This is not the same as a creator selling the exclusive right to exploit a single IP. This is all the creators in a whole market selling all the rights across the market as a single exclusive bundle. Joint selling in most industries is simply not allowed.

Some big European sports leagues have had their joint selling perk removed because of the damaging effects on competition downstream in the market.

Re: Pachter: Economist's Claims in Madden Monopoly Case ...

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. That individual NFL teams should have the right to license their teams out individually?

I think the movie example is a great one. It's all under the umbrella of the organization (NFL). It would be like if the Transformers were licensed out for games one by one (one for Optimus Prime, one for Bumblebee, etc).

Damaging effects of competition. In what way? Why should a rights-holder have to agree to non-exclusive licenses? It's their right as the rights-holder.

Re: Pachter: Economist's Claims in Madden Monopoly Case ...

Actually, I'd consider sports bottom of shovelware barrel next to movies.  At least even movies has a decent one every now and then. Football's football, and no matter how much you shine a piece of crap, it still stinks.

Kinda mixed on this one. I do believe a monopoly by EA is unconscionable, but if gamers got ripped off, it's their fault for buying it in the first place.

Re: Pachter: Economist's Claims in Madden Monopoly Case ...

I notice a lot of people are dismissing movie based video games as "shovelware" as if that has any relevance to the issue at hand. This article is about the monetary effect such licenses have on the general public. Move based IP's are highly sought after by developers because even if the quality is not quite up to snuff they still sell very well. This is especially true about children's games since parents feel very safe buying a game for their kid after having seen the movie the game was based on.

Moving on from that, this article brings up another good point: It is not our "right" as gamers to have games be discounted to some arbitrary price point at some arbitrary time we decide. If we as consumers want something to change, then the only "right" we have is to respond with our wallets (as Vake Xeacons said above me). This doesn't mean bitching because there is no other licensed NFL game you can buy, it means not buying Madden. The only reason games get discounted in the first place is because a large enough number of people do exercise their right to wait to buy a game until it reaches $30 instead of buying it at the launch price of $60.

It is on the other hand the "right" of the publisher to push for an exclusive license and the "right" of the license holder to agree to an exclusive license for a compensation they deem appropriate. This is a "monopoly" only in an intellectual sense, not a legal sense. Complaining that the NFL has licensed its game exclusively to EA is the same thing as complaining that Warner Brothers is the only company that can use the Mortal Kombat characters (following their purchase of the Midway license). Intellectual Properties are owned and controlled by their creator and therefore have the right to be sold or licensed for whatever the IP holder deems appropriate.

And finally as stated in the article, the grand total price difference was a whopping $1.18 per game. Even for price conscientious gamers that's pocket change. So in closing, if you are really worried about that extra $1.18 you feel you are entitled to, then exercise your right as a gamer and don't buy the next Madden. Otherwise, stop wasting forum space by complaining how it's not fair.

 

Re: Pachter: Economist's Claims in Madden Monopoly Case ...

I believe the courts have ruled time and again that sport leagues can, and do operate as a single entity and not just a cartel of seperate teams.

"You know what I wish? I wish all the scum of the Earth had one throat and I had my hands about it."

Re: Pachter: Economist's Claims in Madden Monopoly Case ...

I think clarification of that principle is why the NFL recently asked the U.S. Supreme Court to take up a lawsuit it had actually won regarding officially licensed sportswear.

Re: Pachter: Economist's Claims in Madden Monopoly Case ...

So they raised the price a buck?

Bye Bye lawsuit.

Re: Pachter: Economist's Claims in Madden Monopoly Case ...

For once the guy makes a decent argument.

http://www.magicinkgaming.com/

Re: Pachter: Economist's Claims in Madden Monopoly Case ...

All I have to say is: Finally, someone who actually understands economics.

GamePolitics ShoutBox

Posted 11/20/09 at 05:42pm
ZippyDSMlee: oh may the cute stab out your eyes, http://www.youtube.com/user/simonscat
Posted 11/20/09 at 05:17pm
JDKJ: O.K. Suit yourself. But when you're wearing Ray-Bans, sitting on a curb with a white cane and a cup of pencils, and doing Stevie Wonder impersonations, don't say I didn't warn you.
Posted 11/20/09 at 05:10pm
ZippyDSMlee: JD:No thank you I don;t want your cooties...or STDs...
Posted 11/20/09 at 05:01pm
JDKJ: Me. I'm rehearsing the role just in case I do get dubbed Zippy The Soecnda.
Posted 11/20/09 at 04:59pm
DarkSaber: Wait, is that meant to be Zippy, me or you?
Posted 11/20/09 at 04:49pm
JDKJ: I cud caer lez. =^^= *wakes up in mid-afternoon after staying up until 3:00AM soldering resistors on to circuit boards, stumbles around in formerly white but now grey underwear, while simultaneously scratching groin with vigor and making coffee*
Posted 11/20/09 at 04:46pm
DarkSaber: knell? Don't you mean Neil? Anymore of tht and I'll dub thee Zippy The Soecnda
Posted 11/20/09 at 04:44pm
JDKJ: Now, now, Saber. Don't be salty. You weren't the first one to knell and bob and you ain't gonna be the last one, either.
Posted 11/20/09 at 04:42pm
DarkSaber: JD's feeling rather desperate it seems.
Posted 11/20/09 at 04:33pm
JDKJ: C'mon, Zip. You already touch yourself way too much. Spread the love. Before you go blind.
Posted 11/20/09 at 04:27pm
ZippyDSMlee: JD:No and I ain't touching any part of you or your friends!! :P
Posted 11/20/09 at 04:25pm
JDKJ: @Zip: You know Lik Mitaint?
Posted 11/20/09 at 04:18pm
ZippyDSMlee: neill and bob,oldest giveing head joke and most lamest...
Posted 11/20/09 at 04:18pm
JDKJ: But thanks for the memory. MIB's a classic. *sings* "Here come the Men in Black. Galaxy defenders. Here come the Men in Black. They won't let you remember."
Posted 11/20/09 at 04:18pm
ZippyDSMlee: JD:for the record I told you you can suck your own dck.
Posted 11/20/09 at 04:07pm
JDKJ: Naw, man. That's Mueedeegiaap and Bob. And you can stop bobbing. I got Zippy bobbing now, too.
Posted 11/20/09 at 03:56pm
DarkSaber: OH I get it now! It's Men In Black quote! The twins that run the comm centre in HQ.
Posted 11/20/09 at 03:49pm
JDKJ: I'd like to introduce you to them. First, Neil. Then, Bob.
Posted 11/20/09 at 03:47pm
ZippyDSMlee: JD:I know they are intimate friends of yours...
Posted 11/20/09 at 03:44pm
JDKJ: @Zip: You know Neil and Bob?
Login or register to post shouts