EA's CEO Tells Staff It's Been 'Impeded' by the FIFA Brand (videogameschronicle.com) 24
Electronic Arts CEO Andrew Wilson has given employees a frank appraisal of why he believes the company could be better off ending its 30-year relationship with FIFA. From a report: In his most revealing comments yet on the status of licence negotiations with the footballing body, Wilson told staff in an internal company meeting in November that the FIFA license had been "an impediment" to EA's ambitions for the game series. In comments provided anonymously to VGC, Wilson claimed that FIFA had precluded EA from expanding its games into modes beyond traditional 11v11, or "broader digital ecosystems," and suggested that the only value EA got from the licence in a non-World Cup year was "four letters on the front of the box." EA and FIFA were engaged in a surprising series of back-and-forth statements last year, which started when the video games publisher decided to make public that it was considering ending its relationship with the footballing body.
Rebrand to 'Soccer'... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they didn't have the licenced players they wouldn't be able to fleece consumers with a new edition every year. The changes between editions are minimal, except for the updated teams and players, so people would just keep playing the old one.
Re: (Score:3)
It seems that the serious flaws in the agreement are most of why that's all EA could put into new editions. If they focus on making an actual good game to play rather than "fantasy football" with real players, it might be more successful.
It's possible that the sales are pretty poor with yearly editions with minimal changes. At the very least, the art budget would be able to be slashed drastically, which can also improve profitability. Not having to constantly tweak licensed graphics for uniforms or make
Re: (Score:1)
Ever hear of Football Manager? I know it isn't something those of us in the USA play often, but they sell millions of copies each year. It's a game where you really don't have any real overall control during "matches" you just manage. They use real world football players (they claim over 500,000)
When you look at FIFA it is the #1 selling game in most of western europe. Like everyone says, the game hasn't innovated in ages. The license and brand is what sells.
FIFA and EA together is one hell of a shit sandwi
Re: (Score:2)
"Am I so out of touch? No, no... it's the target market that is wrong!"
This is Slashdot, where the iPod was destined to fail miserably and it's been the Year of the Linux Desktop for the past two decades. The hot grits once slathered onto Natalie Portman have themselves petrified while we wait for Microsoft to bleed red ink and die.
Re: (Score:1)
...and go on just the way you wish, adding extra game modes do your heart's desire, and all that without sponsoring the Slave Games in Qatar.
It's not the name of the game - Football - it's the names of the players because FIFA fans are mindless sheep.
Re: (Score:2)
As opposed to EA fans.
Do an NFL Blitz level version with all kinds of (Score:2)
Do an NFL Blitz level version with all kinds of stuff you can't do under FIFA
It started out as a misunderstanding (Score:4, Interesting)
It didn't matter because the games were so good (only Sensible Soccer offered any real competition at the time, and that was mostly a PC game). Later Konami's ISS series offered a real fight, but by then the FIFA brand was set.
Re: (Score:3)
I am sure the bribes to fifa add up - the olympics wanted gold watches, 24hour bar [sweden], free schooling [australia] so i do wonder what they wanted.
It is sport after alll.
Re: (Score:2)
That makes a lot of sense.
Most of my non-American football friends actively hate FIFA. I don't think EA will notice ditching them.
Re: (Score:2)
Sensible Soccer offered any real competition at the time, and that was mostly a PC game
Sensi soccer was actually an Amiga console seller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
widely popular on that Amiga, only later did it get PC support. For a very long time it was also the defacto soccer management game when they launched "SWOS", SWOS is currently freeware with new game-engine, https://www.sensiblesoccer.de/... [sensiblesoccer.de]
Actua Soccer was the first true 3D polygon soccer game, Fifa however kept up the yearly releases and caught up gameplay wise quickly;
for a while Konami offered a lot of competition
I don't get it (Score:2)
I don't get it, why could they not have a FIFA branded game that is like FIFA-rules football, which makes sense, then have any other football/soccer game that can take the gameplay to wherever they want. Why is it either FIFA or no FIFA, does FIFA demand some sort of weird exclusivity from a publisher in that they can't publish any other football or soccer related title?
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Informative)
They could, and other publisher do. It's all about branding and marketing. There's been dozens of soccer games in the last 40 years, most not FIFA branded. They don't own the game or rules of soccer (after all, they didn't make them).
I think that's the point that EA CEO Andrew Wilson is making: they get very, very little from FIFA for a huge amount of money. The image rights for the players (and permission to use their names), even the rights to use accurate models of the stadiums are all negotiated with other bodies (the player's organizations, the clubs themselves). Taking Wilson literally, all FIFA gives them is the ability to write 'FIFA' on the box and portray themselves as the 'official' game of soccer.
Think of it this way, if a different game publisher was suddenly able to sell a completely unrelated game called "FIFA '24" in a year's time, would it hurt EA?
Re: (Score:2)
It's possible that the FIFA contract prohibits them from selling both FIFA and non-FIFA football (soccer) games.
Re: (Score:2)
Taking Wilson literally, all FIFA gives them is the ability to write 'FIFA' on the box and portray themselves as the 'official' game of soccer.
My heart would bleed for them if EA didn't just take the same game and re-release it every year with a different number on the end of it. Sorry but I'm calling BULLSHIT and my only complaint is that Slashdot doesn't support changing the font size to call out the bullshit even more. EA has made a fucking mint of the FIFA franchise while outright fucking the player base in the process.
I only swear when it's appropriate. FUCK EA and their recycled overpriced shit.
Re: I don't get it (Score:2)
FIFA likely gives them the right to the the team names and logos, but not the players on the teams or the stadiums.
People who grew up in the 90s were familiar with this. EA had NHLPA hockey, and another publisher had NHL hockey. One had the real players and the other had the real teams. This dynamic existed for years before EA got the rights to both.
Gamers have been 'Microtransactioned' by EA (Score:2)
Not to defend FIFA, but EA deserves no sympathy.
Anyone know the license terms? (Score:2)
Does the license preclude them from making other soccer games?
This almost smells of an attempt to poison the well before a renegotiation. Make FIFA scared EA might pull out, to let EA lower the price or change the terms (let them add other modes, etc).
How much does EA / FIFA make on the games now? (Score:2)
Any idea? I mean FIFA is asking for $1B over 4 years according to this, [theverge.com] so I have to believe that EA is making some profit on the franchise. If EA isn't making money on the deal then they should walk away and then FIFA can make their own games with blackjack and hookers!
Evil Trash Org vs. Evil Trash Org (Score:2)
FIGHT!
BF2042 anyone? (Score:1)