FIFA are corrupt from top to bottom. EA have a direct channel to a huge slab of their market to tear the FIFA politicians with their snouts in the trough a new one.
Might actually make next years' game update a lot more interesting than changing the player lists. I'd like to be less cynical about the prospects of anyone actually cleaning up corruption anywhere right now. I really would. Do you prefer Ivanka or Hunter flavours of corruption? We can't even vote that out so the Military Industrial Complex is pretty safe. No chance of health reform either. Nobody likes Ivanka or Hunter and there they go shovelling more money than you will in a decade just this month. "Now do the $other_side who are worse!"
edit: last para anti-corruption rant
The player and teams name, likenesses and logos are governed by licenses with other organisations.
Most people are lazy and don't want to bother with locating files, patching games, dealing with borked patches and so on.
M.U.L.E. and Seven Cities of Gold and Archon and many others were the best games some of us grew up on.
I haven’t been involved in gaming except for the 2 I occasionally play with my kids so I’m blissfully unaware of anything EA has done recently. But back then, they were really amazing.
And on reflection, while Archon was a good game it didn't have enough much depth to make it something truly groundbreaking. Maybe someone should make an updated version of the game. I'm afraid that whatever today's EA would put out would only tarnish my positive memories though.
It feels like they totally ruined:
* Theme Park (entire theme franchise, theme hospital too)
* Dungeon Keeper
Such a dishonest comparison. One was nepotistically involved in day to day operations of the American government, put into diplomatic situations in an official capacity, even attempted to be named World Bank President.
The other is completely divorced from politics and uses his name to sell artwork
This kind of false equivalence does great service to the worst-of-all-time American corruption we experienced in 2016-2020, and helps ensure that it will return.
Which flavor do I prefer? Obviously the one without nepotism, where the child has nothing to do with politics, government and serves in no capacity, official or otherwise. And you should to. Shame on you for pretending otherwise.
When you can't differentiate between nefarious nepotistic public corruption and "using the family name to sell paintings", you do your part to ensure it can and will get worse.
>We can't even vote that out so the Military Industrial Complex is pretty safe
The Military Industrial Complex is very mad at Joe for ending the Afghanistan war and actually pulling troops out. While the previous President admitted he would have left thousands of troops, defied the agreement, and continued the war.
Once again, your false equivalence makes you say "both sides" when there is a real difference.
The war in Afghanistan ended because only one side had the cajones to stick it to the military industrial complex and actually end it, regardless of the optics, the politics and the cost. But you're playing cynical games and you refuse to admit actual change, because it makes you look/feel smart to lie about everyone being the same. Ironically you are serving the military industrial complex right now, who desperately want "one side" out and the other side back, because they can't control the current side nearly as well, and are very upset about the end of the war. Good job helping them, as false equivalence is a powerful tool in their propaganda belt.
This is how the worst outcomes become reality -- being unable and unwilling to appreciate any good at all.
The Afghan government was always going to collapse to the Taliban. 10 years ago, 10 years from now.
There was no end to this war where the Afghan government resisted the Taliban.
And now you claim that the military industrial complex is happy about the end of the war, when they used their control of the media to throw a two month long tantrum? Ridiculous.
How funny that you in one breath bemoan "region destabilized by American hands" and in the next promote neo-colonialism and forever war. You stand for nothing. The Afghan people deserve to rule themselves and if they want an Islamic state, then your bigotry against their self-determination speaks volumes about your concepts of colonialism and your desire to be their white man savior.
What now? Did I miss the election? Maybe then Afghans should have thrown US out of the country if they didn't want their presence. Or do things just seem really easy to people who only lived near peace?
> You stand for nothing.
I stand for the rights of Afghans. Do it there, or take all of them as refugees. Your responsibility, I didn't start a war there for bullshit reasons. Just don't be hypocritical. How can cake be a big deal when you can leave people to be thrown down roofs without blinking?
> your desire to be their white man savior.
You come into my region, fuck everything up, and say this when I want you to clean up your mess?
Yes, and only artwork, definitely not influence. The person responsible for anticorruption efforts, and rooting out any sophisticated, foreign disruptive agents’ access to the White House, by rejecting “abnormal” bids, is a New York art dealer named Georges Bergès. He seems reputable enough, right?
Hunter serves this government in no capacity, official or otherwise, and has no ability to "sell influence".
Ironically, anyone dealing with Hunter is black listed from the White House, as being around that loser is a red flag that slams doors shut in your face.
Which of course is far different than say over 20 different foreign governments renting hotel rooms (that they don't show up for, just to transfer funds) from the President's son, who dutifully reports back to the White House to help set access to the President himself...
This false equivalence is an extremely powerful tool to control people.
I don't much care about a massive nothing like Hunter Biden. Really. Who does? Anyone who doesn't know and love him personally?
Well people care enough to buy his art for big money which is only the case because of the power of his father. Without his powerful father he doesn't make $5. He's no artist is about the most uncontroversial statement imaginable. Very shady Ukrainian business interests were paying him how much a month for his "business expertise?" More than the annual minimum wage? For no duties? Can you get that job? Can I? Can he if his father is Joe Average? Can he if his father is Michael Jordan, or Robin Williams, or Matthew McConnaughey, or Richard Feynman, or any other superstar achiever who isn't politically powerful with duties involving the Ukraine? Does Joe Biden exercise political actions for money or the money that Hunter gets? I actually strongly doubt it. But I'm only 99.8% sure of that. Does it compromise Joe anyway? Yeah, it looks terrible!
It looks terrible because it is terrible. Claiming Ivanka is worse has just gotta stop. Ivanka is irrelevant.
Claming Hunter is worse than Ivanka if you swing that way has just gotta stop. Hunter is irrelevant.
They both meet the threshold to turn your stomach. Regardless if you love the Don or love the Joe or love both (and seriously, good for you if you do. Things are better if you can bring yourself to like both candidates - I'd like to get there too).
Hunter and Ivanka both stink to high heaven. It is of zero consequence who is "worse" they both limbo effortlessly under any bar of decency. They are both shining, sparkling advertisements with fireworks to kids from disadvantaged backgrounds that nobody cares about "merit" or "cleverness" or "honesty" or "hard work" and that you, kid, were not born to succeed like they were and have through nothing more than ... Fill in your own ideas for what personal attributes comprise their financial success.
If only one of those two turns your stomach you have drunk some partisan kool-aid. The benchmark for the actions of the US president and direct family members has to be higher than "Not actually illegal" Whoever the president may be.
If we have a partisan preference maybe we should work out in advance what evidence would turn us against them. What would be bad enough that we might not support them anymore. So if it should happen we're mentally prepared to turn on them so there's some chance of consequences.
Both of Ivanka and Hunter will be fine. The prospect of consequences for them or the political fortunes of their family members are so far below what would be a good thing their story is only illustrative of how bad and endemic the corruption has become.
But yeah you saw those evil gnomes at Fox/MSNBC are rallying around Rachel/Tucker because, that side is so EVIL ... Delete as applicable. As awful as all that is it's actually less depressing than the reality of it all.
I refuse to fall into the low-IQ cynicism of both-side-isms.
It's worse for a public servant, with actual influence and power, to be corrupt, than it is for a child of a politician to make money.
Yes, Hunter is irrelevant because he's not in our government.
NO, Ivanka was not irrelevant, because she was a member of our government elevated to have power in our country.
These differences fundamentally matter. And no amount of both-sides-ism or false equivalence will change the reality that public servants must be held to a higher standard than children of politicians.
It is not "partisan kool-aid" to hold public servants to a higher standard than private children, and to suggest otherwise is ignorant and immoral.
Surely Biden's DoJ will prosecute Ivanka for each and every law breaking activity. Why wouldn't they? Hunter is completely irrelevant to that.
Corruption has to go no matter who, no matter where, no matter what, no matter how politically inexpedient. There's plenty of legal corruption. Pick the 5 kinds of corruption you think are the worst for the nation and also are not illegal. It's harder than it sounds but not because you can't get to 5.
Anyway this is ceasing to be productive as is so often the case. "Those guys suck, my team is fine." The disease of corruption rages on with no real change in sight.
Public servants MUST BE HELD TO A HIGHER STANDARD than private citizens, even relatives of politicians.
I'm sorry you refuse to accept such an uncontroversial tenet, but it's not about teams, it's basic civic morality.
Sure, because that's the extent of his corruption.
Definition: Corruption is a form of dishonesty or a criminal offense which is undertaken by a person or an organization which is entrusted with a position of authority, in order to acquire illicit benefits or abuse power for one's private gain
What position of authority has Hunter Biden been entrusted with that he has abused?
What illicit benefits has Hunter Biden gained?
Shame on you for playing this partisan game. Unlike Invanka, who was nepotistically elevated to public service, Hunter has absolutely no role in the American government and thus cannot in any fair sense be corrupt.
That would be next level irony.
EA, the stewards of justice and defenders of sports.
Ha. No. But they do apparently literally have a billion very good reasons to stand up to corruption. Total self-interest. But it also sure wouldn't do their reputation any harm at all to claim a few FIFA supercharged-hoovering trough-snouts' scalps.
So if EA loses the licenses to say EPIC, then what? People really gonna play a FIFA game with players like "Kristiano Ronalda"?
let's talk about gambling mechanics in their games, shall we?
sounds like people want to make this a political affair, what's the real reason? smells like anti FIFA propaganda
also reminds me of how the US wanted to force some EU clubs to ditch the Champion's League for their own "Cup" thingy
FIFA has the approval of nation-states and there's massive cultural capital invested in FIFA, especially regarding the World Cup. Nobody's leaving it, especially not players.
FIFA also doesn't have leagues of its own.
> EA have a direct channel to a huge slab of their market to tear the FIFA politicians with their snouts in the trough a new one.
EA is chump change compared to world football. They've got no leverage, and despite the dislike for FIFA everywhere, a power struggle between the two with EA casting itself as the righteous party will only invite backlash.
You sure about that? EA's revenue for the last fiscal year was 5.6 billion dollars. FIFA's revenue for the last 4 years is about equal to that dollar amount. There's a lot more money in video games than people think.
FIFA survives because it effectively sanctions competitions at every level. Take Manchester United: they play in the English Premier League. That competition is sanctioned by the English FA - a member of UEFA, the European body of FIFA. If United make it into European competition, they play in a competition organized by UEFA. Their players represent their national teams all over the world, and compete in matches run by UEFA, CONMEBOL, and other FIFA governing bodies.
When Manchester United announced they were joining the Super League in lieu of the UEFA sanctioned European competitions, the FA announced that they were at risk of expulsion from the English league structure because the FA bylaws say you can only play matches sanctioned by FIFA/UEFA - essentially pulling the league and cup competitions away from them and turning them into a glorified exhibition team. And the fans went ballistic at this, for good reason.
Was the ESL a trial balloon? Almost certainly, and we will see something similar, possibly to just force UEFAs hand in negotiating things like revenue sharing. But supplanting FIFA would be much harder than “throwing money at the problem”.
10B probably isn't even enough to buy out the PL, much less the world football pyramid.
So yeah, it's a lot of money today, but at least that part of it is a revenue stream that IMO is vulnerable on a number of fronts, including regulatory issues, changing consumer sentiment, platform crackdowns, etc. It's a lot of eggs in one basket for EA, vs FIFA which is a household name for which much of the revenue should be extremely "safe".
Do you think, in a (more moral than financial) dispute between EA and NBA who would win? It's like that but x10
Most people don't even know who EA is, they just want to play FIFA.
But if you play the game on a regular basis you will also notice the new feature or the thing they've improved. If you play FIFA 2015 and then play FIFA 2022 you'll notice a massive difference yet people will have been saying for years that they don't change anything. That is because every year they improve a single aspect of the game.
The main revenue source for these games isn't even the actual game. It's the online experience where I've heard stories of people paying thousands for their online team.
I think that's the point people are trying to make. If you're making a very small change,why are you charging people for the full price again? They could push an update for a small free each year. And resell the game for full price every 4 years.
And the point people are making is they can't spot the differnce and for them there is no difference. No there is, but they're not good enough to feel or see the difference. It's like saying there isn't a difference between each version release of a programming language. If you're a newbie programmer you won't notice the difference but if you're an advance user you notice it instantly and it changes how you do things.
One of the reasons I normally upgrade every year is that I found if I missed a year the number of changes that I would experience with basically overload me when I did upgrade.
I quit when the gacha team stuff was starting. I'd hope the whales led to huge game improvements, but I wonder if they actually used that money to make huge changes would they just piss off their fanbase?
250M per year seems fair to me. If they don't want to, I'm sure there'll be another company willing to pay that amount for their game can be called “FIFA 2022”.
AFAIK, oil companies also has to pay for the right to extract oil from the ground to the owner. Why would this case be different.
FIFA in the game name give it “official” branding, which they would never have otherwise.
The main things FIFA brings to the table for EA is the name, and the World Cup competition. EA clearly things they aren't worth as much as FIFA wants for them, hence the current wrangling.
If the deals falls through then "EA Sports FC" (or whatver it ends up being called) will still have all the teams / leagues locked up. So a theoretical FIFA game from someone else would presumably still have the same disadvantages as Pro Evo etc.
Football is not like NFL or NBA where you just make a single contract with the league and you get everything. Instead you have to go and make a lot of contracts all over the place. The system is just much more fragmented.
Basically EA could just not pay this money to FIFA and call the game EA Football or something and have all the same content except the FIFA name on the box and the world cup (and the national teams that come with it)
I was questioning how much of protection does player statistics have. At least in the US factual information like who’s playing in which team isn’t protected by copyright or trademark.
That said, graphics are at a point where player likeness is meaningful as is team jerseys. So customers would presumably prefer the licensed product.
I am sure that argument would be made, but I don’t think customers actually think that. Especially if the game makes it clear it’s unofficial.
For famous players, that may even mean they can introduce brand names that otherwise would be ruled confusing. You can’t start selling Louis Vuiton bags, but Messi clothing and shoes won a legal battle against the older Massi brand (https://www.bbc.com/news/business-54193973)
That said, using the names would definitely get you sued but at 250m/year a court case could be worth it.
So while I suspect having the correct number on an in game jersey might run into issues simply linking team names, player names, and player statistics is just factual information.
Madden has cumulative sales, according to Wikipedia, of 250 million copies. The FIFA series has cumulative sales of 325 million.
I'm having a hard time finding consistent annuals sales numbers. Random Googling suggests each new FIFA year sells around 24 million, and each new Madden year around 5 or 6 million.
But Wikipedia says Madden was at cumulative 100 million in 2013, which combined with them saying it is 250 million now, gives an average of over 18 million a year.
Maybe the numbers I found on annual sales were only counting sales of whatever was the latest version? In that case, if a significant number of people who buy Madden X do not do so until after Madden X+1 comes out that could explain it. Madden X could sell 6 million to the people who want the latest version, and then another 12 million in subsequent years to people who wait until it is a bargain bin game.
Yes, FIFA is probably the best known globally, but that doesn't mean that they make the most money.
In new titles usually we'll get some new leagues (nice for people who wants to play a team/league in their country).
IIRC in FIFA 22 you can create your own team now (waited for that one for a long time).
Worth noting that stuff that people want like a much better player career mode seems to never be updated.
Without access to the codebase of course I (or you/parent) don't know how much code they had to change of course but if the game is better I'll happily pay for it to enjoy it.
That said FIFA is at least as shady as EA so they can both burn to the ground.
How much of that $60 you are paying actually goes to the game and not some licensing?
I am not against licensing fees per se, but it is getting out of hand. You would expect they have more resources with all the success to continue to improve football / soccer games. But no, I have so much more fun with Winning Eleven / Pro Evolution Soccer in the late 90s and 00s than all the crap we have now.
It is actually a lot of the same with Remasters, something about the act of making games is lost.
Then (?) Sensible Soccer '98 came out and suddenly there were no real players names anymore, not sure about the pictures though.
Does anyone know if it was due to a copyright claim from FIFA?
If FIFA really is a non-profit, why is there a need for all this money?
>So where does this money go? Well last year  Fifa paid out £26.1 million in salaries to its top 13 executives.
>The organisation does not say how much it pays Sepp Blatter or other senior officials but "compensation is in line with major international and Swiss companies".
Another symptom is the Epic vs. Apple conflict. As the amounts of money made in the sector grow almost without bounds, so does the aggressiveness of the players.
Today‘s game industry is the 20th century‘s movie industry.