Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
FIFA seeks $1B+ (per 4 years) from EA for name usage (nytimes.com)
55 points by jrnkntl 2 days ago | hide | past | favorite | 93 comments





Such a good opportunity for EA to mount an Anti-FIFA corruption campaign in game. Mess with some trade rules. Images of Sep Blatter bathing in the rain of cash at the press conference. Force players to choose between FI-FI-FA legacy league and the new hotness.

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


And the following year FIFA will give the licence to another developer, any everyone will switch to that. PES was a far better game than FIFA, but everyone wanted to play with their favourite players and teams. There's no way EA will kill that cash cow

The article mentions that the FIFA license only includes rights to the name, logo and rights to the World Cup.

The player and teams name, likenesses and logos are governed by licenses with other organisations.


Alternatively, they will allow players to load external databases of teams, logos and footballers from a file, and the community will do the rest of the job. This kind of stuff has been tried before and it's usually pretty safe, legally speaking.

the problem with that approach is abundantly clear in the sales figure gap between PES and FIFA.

Most people are lazy and don't want to bother with locating files, patching games, dealing with borked patches and so on.


Honestly, I am not sure who is more disliked. FIFA or EA.

I’m sure there are a lot of people my age that remember EA extremely fondly for the things they did decades ago.

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.

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2018-09-16-seeing-farther...


Absolutely! The first time I heard of Electronic Arts was from Archon in the early 80's. It's a positive association, and I thought the name "Electronic Arts" was pretty damn cool for a video game company, maybe even bordering on pretentious. I lost most interest in PC games as I got into Linux and open source, but for me EA had a generally positive connotation due to Archon.

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.


Personally, I remember them screwing up Westwood games or what feels like them screwing up Westwood games.

It feels like they totally ruined:

* C&C * Theme Park (entire theme franchise, theme hospital too) * Dungeon Keeper


I wish EA had spun Generals out into a separate IP, instead of treating its customers like idiots, with a result that was unfair to everyone: C&C fans didn’t get a follow up to RA2, and Generals got a ton of hate for reasons that had nothing to do with the actual game, which was a very good RTS with interesting factions and fun / clever mechanics.

Mule was a beautiful game. Never had the chance to play it as four live players only two. Think that would have been a blast.

Shit vs. Turd

>Do you prefer Ivanka or Hunter flavours of corruption?

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.


I am quite upset about the war ending in the worst way possible. You talk like the war in Afghanistan "ending" was a good thing probably because you get to live far, far away from yet another region destabilised by US hands. Joe thought Afghans were too dumb to understand backwards induction, and put a nice islamic state over there. Military industry would sure be mad about the existence of new righteous wars to be fought over there.

The idea that the war could have been ended any other way is Military Industrial Complex propaganda. It's a complete and total fabrication that relies on the ignorance of people to believe that just a little more war and death would magically create a stable government.

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.


>The Afghan people deserve to rule themselves

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?


> used to sell artwork

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?


The idea that loser Hunter can sell "influence" into a White House that he has no role in, no influence in, and is actively kept from, is rank propaganda.

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.


Is he selling influence? Meh. Is he selling the appearance of influence? What is he selling? How is he making any money at all?

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.


Once again, this is rank false equivalence which elevates non-corrupt outsider acitivity with actual corruption by public officials elevated to high office corruptly.

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.


Look at what Hunter has been doing and how that makes the President and his office look. Think about how you feel about that. Ivanka is completely irrelevant to that analysis. Ivanka is not a standard of behavior.

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.


Once again, calling it "teams" is false equivalence and is low-IQ nonsense

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.


> uses his name to sell artwork

Sure, because that's the extent of his corruption.


>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.


> Such a good opportunity for EA to mount an Anti-FIFA corruption campaign in game.

That would be next level irony.

EA, the stewards of justice and defenders of sports.


>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.


In college I played a Madden franchise with my roommates, and late in the first season, somebody's star player had an injury marked "Out for career". We joked that they should also simulate crime and bad-conduct suspensions, but from there it wouldn't be that much of a stretch to have a low-probability "league schism" check each year.

Comparing the power of FIFA to that of EA would be more akin to that of Walmart and a mom-and-pop store. There is no way EA could win this power struggle. So it remains a mystery what the tactic of EA is.

How so? The only thing that FIFA licensed is the words "FIFA", the logo, and the World Cup. All the other stuff (player likeness, etc) are separate licenses.

So if EA loses the licenses to say EPIC, then what? People really gonna play a FIFA game with players like "Kristiano Ronalda"?


Regarding all the criminal and cartel-like activities of FIFA, it wouldn’t surprise me if EA would get in trouble with the other licenses as well. The fee might as well be at this point protection money to not lose also other license deals.

Make all the in-game presentation accurate but comical so it falls under 'parody'.

interesting how people want to make EA looks like the good guys in the story

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

shady shady


> Force players to choose between FI-FI-FA legacy league and the new hotness.

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.


> 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.


I'm not talking about revenue. Football isn't really an industry, and it's not rational. If you want to compare the cultural and social footprint of football to something it's video games as a whole, not EA on its lonesome.

I mean you could probably supplant the entire FIFA organization with $10B if you wanted to take a really big swing. Money talks and if you funnel the right amount of money to the best players you will create the best sports league.

The biggest clubs in the world tried this several months ago - the $3.2 billion European Super League didn’t even last a week before it fell apart.

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”.


Those players would be excluding themselves from all known international football and from transferring to and fro all current clubs and leagues on earth. That would be _complete suicide_. They'd become nobodies overnight.

10B probably isn't even enough to buy out the PL, much less the world football pyramid.


But how much of EA's revenue is from nonsense like microtransactions and loot boxes included in full price AAA games? Ultimate Team (the card trading meta-game) is $1.6B alone: https://boardroom.tv/ea-sports-fifa-ultimate-team-madden-nhl...

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".


Monetary size doesn't matter in this case. In the least

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.


Pretty much every kid that has ever played FIFA knows and repeats the "EA sports - it's in the game" blurb so I'm pretty sure everyone is aware of EA.

Sure, but besides some geeks no one cares if the next FIFA is from EA or Epic. That’s the problem EA has

See it this way. If FIFA decides to award the License to another Publisher, then also other license givers will award them to the new publisher instead of EA. No football executive cares much about the relationship with a gaming studio but for sure about their goodstanding within the corrupt FIFA system.

Sales of games like this always amazed me. It seems like every year somebody tweaks a yaml config with the player details and hits build - voilà brand new game is out, time to shell out another $60.

From my experience with the NHL franchise. If you're a casual or light player of the game you probably won't notice a difference except for the time rosters.

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.


> 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.

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.


Who said they make a very small change? I said they improve a single aspect. The aspects are normally massively changed.

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 agree. It's a typical error of judgement from people that know things superficially. "All electronic music sounds the same", "all FIFA games are the same", "all soccer matches are the same". We simplify things that we know little about or things where we have poor proficiency. But experts can see the slightest differences and nuances.

Updating the roster and 3D assets is not a trivial change.

Also from my experience with the NHL games, things change at a snails pace and not always for the better. It's been a few years since I've played one, but I remember the same buggy moves being possible for multiple years and then strange quality of life decreases in various seasons modes.

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?


Some of us still play NHL94.. http://www.nhl94online.com/

That game is how I got into ice hockey.

If the only value proposition of the game, as compared to competition, is to have real team and player names and their real up-to-date stats, then it's only fair to pay properly for that business advantage.

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.


Sounds more like extortion. EAC built this franchise from the ground up since 1993 and FIFA had nothing to do with it other than four letters.

One can argue that exactly those four letters is what made this franchise successful.

FIFA in the game name give it “official” branding, which they would never have otherwise.


and now EA is milking teenagers with builtin gambling mechanics. there's always a bigger fish and in this case I am happy to see that. Didn't FIFA also have an exclusive contract which prevented PES (Pro Evolution Soccer) from acquiring licenses for team names?

Buying exclusive rights to teams / leagues to cripple the competition is a fairly standard EA play. However it is important to note the exclusive contracts are between EA Sports and the teams / leagues, not FIFA.

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.


The FIFA license doesn't cover the the teams and/or player names. It only covers the words FIFA, the logo, an the "World Cup". The player names and likeness is covered by a separate license.

I am not sure player names and statistics are actually protected though. So it’s more 250m/year to get access to branding like team logos, FIFA on the box, etc.

No its 250m for FIFA and World Cup. All the leagues/teams come from individual contracts with each league and all the players from a contract with FIFPro (International Federation of Professional Footballers) which they just renewed. Basically FIFA wants a huge amount of money for the name FIFA on the box.

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)


Putting FIFA on the box is clearly covered by trademark law.

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.


It's not their stats that have protection, it's their likeness and names that require a license to use. Several games in the past have featured real rosters with fake names to get around this.

Likeness presumably, but fantasy football doesn’t run into a problem with player names. So while companies would get sued over names it seems like they would also likely win.

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 don't think it's really been tested legally, but during the 1994 Major League Baseball strike, there were a handful of (strikebreakers') names that the players' association got replaced in games.

Fantasy football is dealing in statistics. Using a persons name in your game implies they endorse your game, the players associations manage this stuff pretty closely.

> Using a persons name in your game implies they endorse your game

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.


I think there were court cases on infringement around thirty years ago, when games were being made where they'd just license Shaq or Ken Griffey Jr and the rest of the names would be fake.

Player names are trademarked the same way Louis Vuitton is trademarked as a brand.

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)


Trademark protects from confusion in the marketplace not all use. Pepsi can’t successfully sue CNN because someone being interviewed was drinking a soda.

That said, using the names would definitely get you sued but at 250m/year a court case could be worth it.


There must be something about the names as well too. The names used in PES were a continuous joke: https://www.theversed.com/51686/pro-evo-names-years/#.LcxSir...

Players definitely trademark their names, but fantasy football leagues don’t have a problem using their real names.

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 hasn't changed in a decade and it still tops the sales charts every year. It has to have the best economics of any game franchise in existence.

American football is a niche sport outside of the US. I've never heard of anyone playing Madden or seen it on any top sales lists.

But the US is a really big market. Something can be a niche everywhere else and still make a ton of sales.

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.


Sure it can generate tons of sale, but "best economics of any game franchise in existence."... [1] contains some numbers, Madden is probably placed around number 30 if you look at only the numbers for video games.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_media...


FIFA is basically a cash cow unprecedented in gaming. Unfortuantely for EA that cash has to be "equally" split with FIFA.

I'd actually disagree here. Like, multiple mobile games make upwards of 1bn+ per year, and I'd strongly suspect that a bunch of the other sports franchises make similar amounts of money.

Yes, FIFA is probably the best known globally, but that doesn't mean that they make the most money.


You're right, i should have been more precise

I'm a somewhat frequent player. While yes player updates are a part of it there's is more. Firstly players and rosters usually gets updates throughout, so if I open my FIFA 21 now it would certainly update rosters.

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.


All your comments validate the parents post though. Nothing but yaml and UI tweaks :)

Apparently they also did some very detailed motion capture on individual players.

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's an ignorant take. The game has a lot of work put in every year to all aspects.

Do they pull more from that than they would a pure subscription model? $10 a month and it continuously updates stats, adds new players, etc..

You have to understand that EA makes more than $1.5bn annually with a steep upwards trajectory. They are achieving this with mostly predatory micro transactions. They also have now 4 generations of game engines running the Fifa 22 games. One for the switch, one for pc and old-gen consoles and one for the new gen. If you are playing on anything else than new gen consoles you are paying 60$ for an updated xml file and some art assets players are also loosing all the progress and money spent over the last year.

That said FIFA is at least as shady as EA so they can both burn to the ground.


You now have to paid FIFA, every single team in the European League, and Champion League for using their name, logos, colour of their shirt. etc etc. Extra money for having big name player faces for marketing on the box or graphics as well as their 3D face modelling appearing in their game.

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.


Remasters of very old games are usually very enjoyable.

We need a street football (soccer) game and procedural generated stadiums, players, teams. OpenAI can contribute a top engine to an open source game.

I mean, those must exist. The reason EA dominates the market is part network effect and name-recognition, but mostly that they've developed really good sports games, and even with all the aggravating nonsense piled on top, nobody has really challenged them on the second part.

Slightly off topic: Sensible World of Soccer 96/97 and earlier ones had all real player names and those nice pixelated player pictures which quite accurately resembled players' real-life look.

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?


All other points aside, it is truly astounding that the non-profit organisation FIFA requires billions of dollars just to license out their name to a video game.

If FIFA really is a non-profit, why is there a need for all this money?

Some context:

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/05/30/fifa-profits-sep...

>So where does this money go? Well last year [2014] 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".


FIFA wants a piece of the cake. A symptom of the game industry growing immensely during the last couple of years.

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.


I don't think EA would lapse the license. Too much Tencent going on around the block to risk it. This might be a negotiation maneuver.

It definitely is. FIFA knows they're missing out on money big time. EA just published this to create leverage from their customers.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: