Hacker News Reader

Comment by feintruled | Hacker News Reader

Naked greed from FIFA it sounds like https://www.eurogamer.net/new-report-says-fifa-wants-more-th...

Ask for an extra half billion dollars, end up with nothing. Quite a fable. I can't imagine there will be many queueing up to take on the license after EA (certainly not at those rates). The only competent player in that area were Konami, and they are in a nosedive into F2P disasters.

Sounds like some of the falling out was each side not wanting to cede the rights to capitalise off stuff like NFTs, which is hilarious.

View on HN

I think what Konami did with PES was really smart: they created fictional clubs and leagues with hints about what they should be in real life and let everything be customizable. As expected, gamers already have shared databases with updated info about current leagues and clubs, saving Konami from paying any licence at all AFAIK

Not entirely, they have bought exclusive licenses for some clubs like Juventus and Manchester United, which has resulted in said clubs being renamed in other football-relates games like ~FIFA~ EA Sports FC and Football Manager. Juventus is either Piemonte Calcio or Zebre, keeps the same colours and players, and is pretty obvious what it is

The cost savings can't have been that great because PES is no better than FIFA now when it comes to nickel and diming players constantly.

Naked greed from FIFA it sounds like..

For FIFA to ask for a $1bn over 4 years based on EA's revenue of nearly $6bn from FIFA and Ultimate Team in the same period (assuming zero growth) doesn't seem that greedy to me.

Well, it's my perception that this was a nice little earner for FIFA in that EA did all the work whilst they got a massive pay off. They are obviously thinking about taking up their own financial opportunities more, and that's presumably why they bumped up their valuation. Time will tell on that front, but I think it's a massive error. FIFA don't have the competentcy.

EA are no saints either, of course. FIFA the game has morphed into a microtransaction nightmare. But I think they will still get their $6bn with or without FIFA on the box, Ultimate Team is the brand now. The only thing derailing that train is legislation (increasingly likely given how it targets children)

Sorry if you already know this, but it's literally just the name on the box, not licensing for leagues, player names etc. I see basically no value in that name, it may even be a negative given their poor reputation (corruption etc).

They can probably make up the losses from the sweet deal on: "Fifa® Grand Corruption, Human Trafficking and Sex with Minors"™

Do you really think that asking a $1B cut from $6B revenue is OK? That's a cut of 17% for what? For licensing a name? As a gamer I'd rather save $10 on the price and have it named something else. We already have to put up with the clubs names BS anyway... because they don't have the licenses for using the real team names in the game.

At the end of the day FIFA the game makes a lot of money and EA could easily afford that extra half billion. They chose not to pay because they are greedy themselves. It's just business.

Somebody else will probably still end up paying for that valuable license, since most of the value of these games is in the name. A lot of console player only buy 2 titles a year: Call Of Duty and FIFA.

> since most of the value of these games is in the name

People will buy the EA football game, the name does not matter.

I think people will generally buy the game that has the real teams and players.

I believe the falling through of this FIFA deal does not (severely) impact that as EA has agreements with all governing bodies separately (Premier League, Bundesliga etc.)

I am not sure if they can now still have the national teams?

Yes for sure I assume they keep their other licensing agreeements.

They can't license the World Cup, so I think national teams are out as well, as they're under the FIFA umbrella.

I think having the team names and player names is what gets people to buy that particular game (assuming they all play well)

Yeah in terms of greed it's really hard to say which of these two parties I detest more.

What do EA get out of the deal though? Made sense when they were launching the series back in the days the Sega Megadrive, now it's just an incredibly expensive albatross round their neck. FIFA are so corrupt the association is negative. Why would you pay for that? In a saner world FIFA would be paying EA for sponsorship to launder their image!

How can it be an albatross if it's been a profitable franchise with Coca-Cola level name recognition globally?

Recent developments around the Qatar World Cup and various other scandals have toxified the brand

https://www.ft.com/content/dd1d016f-5263-4161-bb4b-af7968abd...

I wonder how much is sales of FIFA vs NFL games and their corresponding license fees

Sounds like this could also be a warning shot for NFL or anyone else having funny ideas

And bear in mind this deal doesn't even include player and club likeness and naming rights! May have been rhetoric from EA but it really does seem there is some truth to their assertion that FIFA was just 'four letters on front of the box'.

Not sure how the NFL deal works out in that regard, but it does seem a little more tightly coupled : https://www.polygon.com/2020/5/28/21270647/madden-nfl-ea-ren...

Just give it a little time: "Camp Nou will be rebranded as Spotify Camp Nou" [1]. But, I agree, I was also a little confused when reading the title at first.

[1] https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/15/22979943/spotify-camp-nou...

Honestly if they end up dropping the price for PES/Konami, it might be worth it just to take over the franchise. No doubt they’ll try.

It wouldn't matter, because EA Sports still has the licenses for teams and players. Those rights are provided by UEFA and national football associations.

Only thing EA really loses out on is official licensing for World Cup-related games.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com