Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

MMC sparks video battle

Mathew Horsman
Thursday 09 March 1995 19:02 EST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

BY MATHEW HORSMAN

A price war is poised to break out between the two giants of the £550m UK video games market folowing a Monopolies and Mergers Commission report yesterday that the two had operated pricing policies against the public interest.

After a 14-month investigation, the commission found that game manufacturers Nintendo and Sega had operated discriminating pricing policies. It called for these to end and for other changes in the way the games are licensed and the prices at which they are sold.

According to the report, the two manufacturers, in effect, control the supply of video games in Britain through pricing practices and onerous restrictions on the independent software producers granted licences to manufacture their video games. Between them, Sega and Nintendo account for 63 per cent of all video games sold in Britain.

The report looked particularly at relative prices of the Nintendo and Sega games in other countries, adjusted for varying tax rates. The MMC found that for the 16-bit format games, representing about 60 per cent of the total hardware market, the models of Sega and Nintendo cost "substantially" more in the UK than in other countries.

Both companies were alsofound to have set prices to earn higher margins on software than on hardware. This makes it harder for new entrants to the market to compete, since their hardware costs of entry are much harder to recoup.

Nintendo called the report "disappointing", but said it would work with the MMC during a planned review process.

Specifically, the MMC found that the two companies have acted to lower the price of their consoles and raise the prices of their own games, meanwhile applying restrictive conditions to the licences they issue to independent publishers. This enables them to "control the supply of video games", John Evans, corporate affairs minister, said in a statement.

A number of restrictions forming part of licensing agreements also came under fire. Limits on the number of games licensed per year, controls over packaging, and the need to seek prior approval from the companies before developing games were all deemed restrictive. In a particularly strongly-worded recommendation, the MMC said that if the companies found it was not possible to comply in certain of these areas, "some form of price control may have to be considered".

The report also criticised the companies' policies on video game rentals. Nintendo prohibits them, while Sega has established restrictive rules governing the rental market. The MMC ruled that such restrictions and prohibitions are against the "public interest" because they do not allow customers to try out games before making an "informed purchase."

The MMC report sets a consultation period of three months, during which time information regarding the precise terms of the relationship between licencees and the two game companies will be sought.

The two companies had argued that many of the MMC's proposed remedies could not be implemented, because of the UK's obligations under European Union law. The report concluded, however, that EU limitations were not as severe as had been suggested.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in