Why the NFL’s Labor Strife Might Be the Best Thing That Happened to Madden (Kotaku)

[kjcheezhead]

Re: Why the NFL’s Labor Strife Might Be the Best Thing That Happened to Madden (Kotak

Why does the NFL want just one company making NFL games?

MLB evidently doesn't have just one company making baseball games. There's All Pro and The Show at the minimum (I believe OOTP uses real players/teams by default these days)

So why wouldn't the NFL want more people paying them for right to use NFL images, teams, etc? Wouldn't that mean more money?

I mean if Backbreaker or some other company comes up with a game that does capture the attention of Madden fans and has some sales success - wouldn't the NFL want that company also paying them for rights?

Then if in some fantasy fairy land I came up with a FB game that was awesome - now there's Madden, Backbreaker, and Knuckleball Lover Football. (Hey, KLF!! LOL). Wouldn't NFL want all of us paying them for rights, not just EA? I mean, why not bleed EA and getting money from two other companies?

With the No Fun League, the number one priority is money over anything else. EA pays more than multiple companies did.

Number two priority is image. The NFL doesn't want the game to be too violent, players to have tattoos or celebrate too much when they return a pick for a td in the Super Bowl ala Nick Collins.

They know full well that there is a fair number of football fans wanting choices in video games. They just don't care. Sucks to love a league that treats their fans this way, but just like the rest of America I love football and the NFL has the best athletes in the game.

[SpeedyMikeWallace]

Re: Why the NFL’s Labor Strife Might Be the Best Thing That Happened to Madden (Kotak

The NFL doesn't have to give away an exclusive license.

It all started after 2K sold their game for $20, which forced EA to drop their price to $30. Games were $50 at the time. The NFL saw this as some sort of weakening of their brand image, or something like that, so they put up their license for bidding. EA obviously won, but what has ended up happening is (and I'm pretty sure almost everyone foresaw it) they've become lazy. Without competition, they know they can just roll out the game year after year with minor tweaks and new rosters and charge $60 for it. It's why I haven't bought a new one since Madden 09/ Head Coach 09.

The NFL, seeking to protect it's brand, went exclusive. Ironically, that move probably did MORE to harm their brand image, because, now, instead of a few cheap games, they have 1 game that is the butt of many poor quality video game jokes.

I think the NFL would be better off selling their license to 2K, EA, Microsoft Game Studio, and Sony to, once again, create a competitive market. They could put in a condition that the MSRP must remain $59.99 or the contract will be voided. There's no reason why they couldn't maintain $300million for their license, it just will not all come from the same source.

That is, of course, assuming the courts do not find EA and the NFL guilty of price fixing: Judge Allows Madden "Price Fixing" Lawsuit to Proceed

[roadman]

Re: Why the NFL’s Labor Strife Might Be the Best Thing That Happened to Madden (Kotak

The NFL doesn't have to give away an exclusive license.

It all started after 2K sold their game for $20, which forced EA to drop their price to $30. Games were $50 at the time. The NFL saw this as some sort of weakening of their brand image, or something like that, so they put up their license for bidding. EA obviously won, but what has ended up happening is (and I'm pretty sure almost everyone foresaw it) they've become lazy. Without competition, they know they can just roll out the game year after year with minor tweaks and new rosters and charge $60 for it. It's why I haven't bought a new one since Madden 09/ Head Coach 09.

The NFL, seeking to protect it's brand, went exclusive. Ironically, that move probably did MORE to harm their brand image, because, now, instead of a few cheap games, they have 1 game that is the butt of many poor quality video game jokes.

I think the NFL would be better off selling their license to 2K, EA, Microsoft Game Studio, and Sony to, once again, create a competitive market. They could put in a condition that the MSRP must remain $59.99 or the contract will be voided. There's no reason why they couldn't maintain $300million for their license, it just will not all come from the same source.

That is, of course, assuming the courts do not find EA and the NFL guilty of price fixing: Judge Allows Madden "Price Fixing" Lawsuit to Proceed

That is all great in theory, but an ex-EA employee posted on here that the NFL made more than double going exclusive vs other football game manufactures contributing with several liscenses.

As we have all seen, the NFL is greedy and their standard business agreements have been mostly exlcusive. Nike, Rebok, Directtv, etc......


It's better for consumers to have competition, but it's more revenue producing for the NFL to go exclusive.

[SpeedyMikeWallace]

Re: Why the NFL’s Labor Strife Might Be the Best Thing That Happened to Madden (Kotak

In 2005 that may have been the case. 6 years ago, the VG industry wasn't grossing as much as the film industry. In 2-3 years, it will definitely have surpassed it. I find it hard to believe they couldn't make equal to, or more than, $300million in licensing by selling to multiple companies.

If EA wants to spend half a billion on an exclusive license, more power to them. They may not have that option if they're found guilty in that lawsuit, however.

The NFL has "Official" apparel. Redbok, however, is not the only company allowed to make clothing with the teams' logos and players' names on them.

DirecTV isn't similar either. The only thing they're allowed that other carriers are not is bypassing regionalization. Every single cable company, and Dish, are capable of showing NFL games.

[carnalnirvana]

Re: Why the NFL’s Labor Strife Might Be the Best Thing That Happened to Madden (Kotak

I really dont have a problem with the exclusive deal, it seems the nfl likes the promotion it gets from madden.

i dont believe they are aware of the outrage the community has with the product's percieved quality.

they care about the hits in madden and how it paints the league image. other than that madden could be released with Manning doing KR and they would not be bothered.

it may not be related but look at sony and the show, i dont see a riot to get 2k baseball on the ps3, i am sure 2k fans who have both consoles may miss the opportunity if they favor playing games on their ps3 but if you only have a ps3 you are covered.

i think its EA who has made a mess of this situation with its fanbase, also with a paid for exclusive license they have creative freedom to release whatever they want as long as they follow the fine print.

[LiquorLogic]

Re: Why the NFL’s Labor Strife Might Be the Best Thing That Happened to Madden (Kotak

In 2005 that may have been the case. 6 years ago, the VG industry wasn't grossing as much as the film industry. In 2-3 years, it will definitely have surpassed it. I find it hard to believe they couldn't make equal to, or more than, $300million in licensing by selling to multiple companies.

If EA wants to spend half a billion on an exclusive license, more power to them. They may not have that option if they're found guilty in that lawsuit, however.

The NFL has "Official" apparel. Redbok, however, is not the only company allowed to make clothing with the teams' logos and players' names on them.

DirecTV isn't similar either. The only thing they're allowed that other carriers are not is bypassing regionalization. Every single cable company, and Dish, are capable of showing NFL games.

The NFL won't make more money by selling licenses to multiple publishers because, without exclusivity, publisher's aren't guaranteed the entire market share. It's doubtful that any publisher would agree to pay an upfront fee. Why would they when another publisher, that the NFL also awarded a license to, may garner a lot of sales, thus the company takes a hit financially.

With multiple licenses publishers pay the licensor a percentage of their sales, which is usually around 10 percent.

Reebok is the only company allowed to make jerseys and hats; if you want an NFL jersey or hat, you have to buy it from Reebok. That means that Reebok doesn't have to worry about competition, so prices are higher. If Nike was allowed to make Jerseys and hats simultaneously, Reebok would have to make sure their pricing was competitive.

As for Direct TV, it's true that other companies can show NFL games, but ,as you stated before, they're the only ones that offer every game from every market; if you're a fan of a team but you don't live in that local market, you have to get Direct TV; if you want access to every single NFL game that's not on National TV, you have to purchase NFL Sunday Ticket. Exclusivity places a tremendous value on the license for Sunday Ticket. If you want it, you have to get Direct TV. For that reason, the exclusive license for Sunday Ticket is expensive. It would be a lot cheaper if Comcast, the Dish, and whatever other companies were allowed to offer Sunday Ticket.

The problem that the NFL may have created for themselves is that, at this point and time, EA is the only publisher that can pay for an exclusive license, and is the only company that seems interested in making a football game right now. If there's no one to freeze out, why should EA have to pay a high premium anymore to do so.

In the football video game world, there are no Comasts, Dish Networks, or Time Warners any more; there's only Direct TV (EA).

[SpeedyMikeWallace]

Re: Why the NFL’s Labor Strife Might Be the Best Thing That Happened to Madden (Kotak

The NFL won't make more money by selling licenses to multiple publishers because, without exclusivity, publisher's aren't guaranteed the entire market share. It's doubtful that any publisher would agree to pay an upfront fee. Why would they when another publisher, that the NFL also awarded a license to, may garner a lot of sales, thus the company takes a hit financially.

They won't be guaranteed an entire market share, but they're still able to make NFL games. Sports games without the teal teams and players just do not sell anywhere near the "real thing".

The opportunity to possibly increase a market share that is currently 0 is worth something, especially in market as lucrative as NFL video games.

You also have to consider that individual licensing opens up opportunity where none now exists. Another company, like 2K, could come around and knock Madden off the top.

Madden wasn't always the top selling NFL game. That may be why EA would be willing to shell out big money as it's the only way they'll be able to guarantee that they'll remain on top. EA's complacency will have to end, or else they'll fall behind other companies willing to actually work hard to create a good game.

They would have to buy the license to use the NFL and it's members in the game.

With multiple licenses, publishers pay the licensor a percentage of their sales, which is usually around 10 percent.

This is probably the case with exclusivity or not.

Reebok is the only company allowed to make jerseys and hats, so if you want an NFL jersey or hat, you have to buy it from Reebok. That means that Reebok doesn't have to worry about competition, so prices are higher. If Nike was allowed to make Jerseys and hats simultaneously, Reebok would have to make sure their pricing was competitive.

True, if you want to get down to individual products, but that's not a proper analogy. Rebok is in charge of the "Official Apparel", but are not the only company that can stamp a Dallas Cowboys logo on a t-shirt. With video games, no other company can touch NFL properties.

As for Direct TV, it's true that other companies can show NFL games, but ,as you stated before, they the only ones that offer every game from every market; so if you're a fan of a team but you don't live in that local market, you have to get Direct TV; if you want access to every single NFL game that's not on National TV, you have to purchase NFL Sunday Ticket. Exclusivity places a tremendous value of the license for Sunday Ticket. If you want it, you have to get Direct TV. For that reason, the exclusive license for Sunday Ticket is expensive. It would be a lot cheaper if Comcast, the Dish, and whatever other companies were allowed to offer Sunday Ticket.

This is about exclusivity. DirecTV would only be applicable if the NFL was to only show games through DirecTV. That is not the case. People can still enjoy their hometown teams without buying DirecTV and the NFL Sunday Ticket.

The problem that the NFL may have created for themselves is that, at this point and time, EA is the only publisher that can pay for an exclusive license, and is the only company that seems interested in making a football game right now. If there's no one to freeze out, why should EA have to pay a high premium anymore to do so.

EA is not the only company that can buy an exclusive license. Activision, Microsoft, Sony, and 2K (Take-Two) are also capable of buying a license.

2K is pursuing a lawsuit against EA and the NFL for using the exclusive license to price fix. Obviously, 2K is still peeved about not being able to make NFL games.

In the football video game world, there are no comasts, Dish Networks, or time warners any more; there's only Direct TV (EA).

In the video game world, there is only EA. In the TV world, there is every single cable company, plus free TV via the networks. DirecTV is the only option if you want to watch Seattle play Arizona in New Jersey, but they do not own 100% of the NFL TV market.

[LiquorLogic]

Re: Why the NFL’s Labor Strife Might Be the Best Thing That Happened to Madden (Kotak

They won't be guaranteed an entire market share, but they're still able to make NFL games. Sports games without the teal teams and players just do not sell anywhere near the "real thing".

They'll be able to make NFL games, but so can other companies, so they're not guaranteed to sell anything. That's the value of the exclusive license and why exclusive licenses are so expensive: the licensee is guaranteed a hundred percent of the market share. Also, you're right, non-licensed sports games don't sell anything near the " real thing" which why exclusive licenses are so expensive.

You also have to consider that individual licensing opens up opportunity where none now exists. Another company, like 2K, could come around and knock Madden off the top.

Why does the NFL care about who's the top dog as far as video game sells are concerned ? They just want the most amount of revenue.

Madden wasn't always the top selling NFL game. That may be why EA would be willing to shell out big money as it's the only way they'll be able to guarantee that they'll remain on top. EA's complacency will have to end, or else they'll fall behind other companies willing to actually work hard to create a good game.

As far as I can remember, unless I'm mistaken, Madden has always been the top-selling video game. Now, 2k did give them a scare and was gaining on them, but Madden 05 still outsold 2k5.

This is probably the case with exclusivity or not.

It's not the case now with the deal that EA and the NFL have in place. EA gets over 70 million dollars a year if EA doesn't sell one more copy of Madden. Before exclusivity, EA paid the NFL a percentage of their sales. The whole deal has cost, or will have cost, EA nine figures in cash, and that money is guaranteed.

True, if you want to get down to individual products, but that's not a proper analogy. Rebok is in charge of the "Official Apparel", but are not the only company that can stamp a Dallas Cowboys logo on a t-shirt. With video games, no other company can touch NFL properties.

Yeah, but they're the only companies that can sell jerseys and hats. So if your team gets a new free agent, and you want his jersey, you have to go to Reebok. If you want a hat, you have to get it from Reebok.

This is about exclusivity. DirecTV would only be applicable if the NFL was to only show games through DirecTV. That is not the case. People can still enjoy their hometown teams without buying DirecTV and the NFL Sunday Ticket.

Unless those people don't live in their home town anymore. There are also a lot of people that want access to every single game. Those people have to choose Direct TV.

EA is not the only company that can buy an exclusive license. Activision, Microsoft, Sony, and 2K (Take-Two) are also capable of buying a license.

Activision doesn't care about the sports game market, I don't know about Microsoft or Sony and 2k doesn't have the capital. Microsoft and Sony haven't been making football games in like forever. It will be an up hill battle, that will cost a lot of money, to start developing a football game.

2K is pursuing a lawsuit against EA and the NFL for using the exclusive license to price fix. Obviously, 2K is still peeved about not being able to make NFL games.

We'll see how that shakes out in court. The NFL might just settle it and move on.

In the video game world, there is only EA. In the TV world, there is every single cable company, plus free TV via the networks. DirecTV is the only option if you want to watch Seattle play Arizona in New Jersey, but they do not own 100% of the NFL TV market.

It's not so much about the entire NFL as it is about a particular service. Sunday Ticket allows you to watch every single game, period. You can only do that if you get Direct TV.

[SpeedyMikeWallace]

Re: Why the NFL’s Labor Strife Might Be the Best Thing That Happened to Madden (Kotak

They'll be able to make NFL games, but so can other companies, so they're not guaranteed to sell anything. That's the value of the exclusive license and why exclusive licenses are so expensive: the licensee is guaranteed a hundred percent of the market share. Also, you're right, non-licensed sports games don't sell anything near the " real thing" which why exclusive licenses are so expensive.

They're not guaranteed to sell anything, but they will. They'll pay $30million or $50million to use NFL properties over 5 years and then shell out another 10% of the sales because they know the game will sell. It's the NFL, and that makes all the difference.

Why does the NFL care about who's the top dog as far as video game sells are concerned ? They just want the most amount of revenue.

Maybe I give the NFL too much credit, but quality control is an important part of business. If I ran a company and my customers were complaining about the quality of a product associated with my company, I'd take measures to fix it.

As far as I can remember, unless I'm mistaken, Madden has always been the top-selling video game. Now, 2k did give them a scare and was gaining on them, but Madden 05 still outsold 2k5.

Madden was beaten by NFL GameDay for a run of years. For whatever reason, though, 989 Sports didn't adjust well to the PS2. When EA HAS to put out quality, they will.

It's not the case now with the deal that EA and the NFL have in place. EA gets over 70 million dollars a year if EA doesn't sell one more copy of Madden. Before exclusivity, EA paid the NFL a percentage of their sales. The whole deal has cost, or will have cost, EA nine figures in cash, and that money is guaranteed.

You know for a fact that EA doesn't have to pay the NFL any kind of %? Just curious.

Yeah, but they're the only companies that can sell jerseys and hats. So if your team gets a new free agent, and you want his jersey, you have to go to Reebok. If you want a hat, you have to get it from Reebok.

You're narrowing it too much. The market is NFL apparel. Reebok holds the "Official Apparel" status, but they're not the only ones with access to NFL logos, team logos, player names, etc.. That is why it's not an accurate analogy. EA is the only company in the video game market with access to those things.

Unless those people don't live in their home town anymore. There are also a lot of people that want access to every single game. Those people have to choose Direct TV.

The point is, DirecTV doesn't own 100% of the NFL TV market similarly to how EA owns 100% of the VG market.

Activision doesn't care about the sports game market, I don't know about Microsoft or Sony and 2k doesn't have the capital. Microsoft and Sony haven't been making football games in like forever. It will be an up hill battle, that will cost a lot of money, to start developing a football game.

I'm just saying those companies are capable of buy a license. I know Activision doesn't have it's fingers in the sports market, but could change. You never know. Anything that could weaken EA is probably on their radar.

Microsoft and Sony could start up their football studios again if they wanted. Sure, it would cost some money, but they'd make it back pretty quickly.

2K for sure would jump at it. They wouldn't be filing lawsuits 5-6 years after the fact if they didn't want their NFL game back.

We'll see how that shakes out in court. The NFL might just settle it and move on.

I don't think the NFL and EA will be able to settle a price fixing lawsuit without giving up their exclusive agreement.

It's not so much about the entire NFL as it is about a particular service. Sunday Ticket allows you to watch every single game, period. You can only do that if you get Direct TV.

But it is about the entire NFL within a certain market. That's what it is with Madden, the entire video game market.

[roadman]

Re: Why the NFL’s Labor Strife Might Be the Best Thing That Happened to Madden (Kotak

Sorry, but I disagree.

I didn't see one SB hat made by any other company than Reebok. Sure, if you wanted a cheaper quality shirt you could purchase the cheaper shirt. If you wanted a SB hat with the Packers or Steelers on it, it had to manufactured by Reebok, period.


You do give the NFL too much credit for quality control. John Madden is a special advisor to Goodell. 5 million people that purchase the game might be happy with the game vs a few thousand on the net that didn't buy the game.

It's all about the NFL making money on their exclusive contracts.

[SpeedyMikeWallace]

Re: Why the NFL’s Labor Strife Might Be the Best Thing That Happened to Madden (Kotak

It doesn't matter about individual products, it's about the market for clothing with NFL team logos and player names on them. Reebok is not the only company that has access to those, so it's not the same as EA's exclusive contract. You could say Reebok has a semi-exclusive contract, if you want.

I think there's more than the few thousand people that think Madden has gotten stale. Most people just can't break the habit of paying for the next one, or don't want to because they won't be able to play their friends online. Unless it's some 13 year old who doesn't know any better, I rarely hear anyone say Madden is a great game. It just doesn't receive the praise that The Show or FIFA gets, and it's due to the fact that the game isn't on their level.

I think the NFL would make more money from video games if they licensed out to more than a single company.

[roadman]

Re: Why the NFL’s Labor Strife Might Be the Best Thing That Happened to Madden (Kotak

It doesn't matter about individual products, it's about the market for clothing with NFL team logos and player names on them. Reebok is not the only company that has access to those, so it's not the same as EA's exclusive contract. You could say Reebok has a semi-exclusive contract, if you want.

I think there's more than the few thousand people that think Madden has gotten stale. Most people just can't break the habit of paying for the next one, or don't want to because they won't be able to play their friends online. Unless it's some 13 year old who doesn't know any better, I rarely hear anyone say Madden is a great game. It just doesn't receive the praise that The Show or FIFA gets, and it's due to the fact that the game isn't on their level.

I think the NFL would make more money from video games if they licensed out to more than a single company.

I'm not dismissing individual products. You can't, it's in the equation. If I want a SB hat, Reebok's name will be the only one on it.

Also, you can't judge people who don't peruse the internet if they like Madden or not. I have a 25 yr old nephew that loves Madden and doesn't hop online to the various forums and claims I'm trying to make Madden more difficult. All he wants to do is have bragging rights with his buddies online. I would consider him and his buddies casual happy gamers.

If the NFL thought they could make more $ from individual liscenses, they would have done it 6 yrs ago. They definately couldn't make more $ at this stage with no one stepping up to the plate with enough start up capital than EA has. If that ever happened and the NFL received a % of sales off the start-up companies, the NFL's profit vs the exclusive liscense would greatly plummet. EA would still have at least 80% of the market.

We all have a tendency to look at this situation through gamer eyes, but it's a business and it needs to be looked at through business eyes and making $. And that is what the NFL is all about.

[SpeedyMikeWallace]

Re: Why the NFL’s Labor Strife Might Be the Best Thing That Happened to Madden (Kotak

I'm not dismissing individual products. You can't, it's in the equation. If I want a SB hat, Reebok's name will be the only one on it.

Also, you can't judge people who don't peruse the internet if they like Madden or not. I have a 25 yr old nephew that loves Madden and doesn't hop online to the various forums and claims I'm trying to make Madden more difficult. All he wants to do is have bragging rights with his buddies online. I would consider him and his buddies casual happy gamers.

If the NFL thought they could make more $ from individual liscenses, they would have done it 6 yrs ago. They definately couldn't make more $ at this stage with no one stepping up to the plate with enough start up capital than EA has. If that ever happened and the NFL received a % of sales off the start-up companies, the NFL's profit vs the exclusive liscense would greatly plummet. EA would still have at least 80% of the market.

We all have a tendency to look at this situation through gamer eyes, but it's a business and it needs to be looked at through business eyes and making $. And that is what the NFL is all about.

EA owns 100% of the NFL video game market. Reebok DOES NOT own 100% of the NFL apparel market. No matter how you slice it, other companies are out there printing team logos on t-shirts. It doesn't matter if Reebok has a special hat or jersey, they still do not own 100% of the clothing market.

I work retail in a store that sells video games. Needless to say, I hear hundreds of opinions daily. The only people who think Madden is a great game are teenagers and adults whose video game library consists of NCAA Football, Madden, Call of Duty, and Battlefield. Basically, it's the "Michael Bay" crowd of video gaming.

Part of business is never resting on your laurels and always maintaining the highest quality possible. EA has gotten lazy, and the NFL needs to pull a little "quality control" out on them.

[roadman]

Re: Why the NFL’s Labor Strife Might Be the Best Thing That Happened to Madden (Kotak

Part of business is never resting on your laurels and always maintaining the highest quality possible. EA has gotten lazy, and the NFL needs to pull a little "quality control" out on them.

Again, you are giving the NFL too much credit here.

John Madden is a special advisor to Goodell. Plus, we all know the NFL is greedy.

I'm sure the NFL feels most people be are getting a good game based on the sales of Madden alone.

They won't break the liscense because a few thousand people on the net want it that way.

Teenagers and adults are a large part of the consumers for Madden.

Does other clothing have the NFL trademark on the clothing?

[JerseySuave4]

Re: Why the NFL’s Labor Strife Might Be the Best Thing That Happened to Madden (Kotak

what does decertification mean for the game? With no NFLPA does that mean EA must now deal with players individually?

Oh and by the way, to the last few posts, i believe Nike has now outbid Reebok and is the new offical brand of the NFL. At least thats what i saw in the latest issue of SI.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d...iform-provider