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