Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FIFA seeks $1B+ (per 4 years) from EA for name usage

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 95 posts

Re: FIFA seeks $1B+ (per 4 years) from EA for name usage

#21

Post by tut-urut-utut »

djmips wrote: post #15
tut-urut-utut wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

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.

Re: FIFA seeks $1B+ (per 4 years) from EA for name usage

#22

Post by mbg721 »

harry8 wrote: post #3

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…

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.

Re: FIFA seeks $1B+ (per 4 years) from EA for name usage

#23

Post by Bayart »

pg_bot wrote: post #14
Bayart wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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 gam…

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.

Re: FIFA seeks $1B+ (per 4 years) from EA for name usage

#24

Post by mikepurvis »

pg_bot wrote: post #14
Bayart wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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 gam…

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".

Re: FIFA seeks $1B+ (per 4 years) from EA for name usage

#25

Post by Retric »

doikor wrote: post #20
Retric wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. In…

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.

Re: FIFA seeks $1B+ (per 4 years) from EA for name usage

#26

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

siva7 wrote: post #4
vultour wrote: post #2

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.

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.

Re: FIFA seeks $1B+ (per 4 years) from EA for name usage

#27

Post by boomboomsubban »

that_guy_iain wrote: post #10
vultour wrote: post #2

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 any…

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?

Re: FIFA seeks $1B+ (per 4 years) from EA for name usage

#28

Post by kasperni »

pg_bot wrote: post #5
vultour wrote: post #2

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.

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.

Re: FIFA seeks $1B+ (per 4 years) from EA for name usage

#29

Post by raverbashing »

pg_bot wrote: post #14
Bayart wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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 gam…

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.

Re: FIFA seeks $1B+ (per 4 years) from EA for name usage

#30

Post by siva7 »

disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #26
siva7 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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
Post reply on HN