This news isn't really all that surprising... but then again, it sort
of is.

So, EA and FIFA have been on the outs for over a year, with FIFA
demanding a larger cut of the profits from EA's games in exchange for
the use of their name. EA balked, and has over the past months,
suggested it might just go ahead without the branding. After all,
aside from the organization's name, FIFA brings very little to the
partnership; EA still has to separately manage the licenses to all the
various football clubs and to the player names. Still, the idea that
the two corporations would actually part ways seemed unlikely; it all
seemed just the standard contract negotiation tactics.

Well, apparently not, since EA has announced that - while there will
still be an EA-published "FIFA 23", that will be the last one from
them. After that, the license will revert back to FIFA and new
association football games from them will bear the "EA Sports FC"
branding - basically the same games as before but with a new name.
Meanwhile, FIFA will continue the "FIFA xx" games after they sucker...
erm, negotiate a new developer into paying them the appropriately high
license fees.

Frankly I don't care either way, and - in an unusual twist - whoever
loses, we win. FIFA is notoriously corrupt, and EA has turned the FIFA
series into a pay-to-win lootbox-fest. If both companies end up the
worse for this decision, I'm all the happier for it.

Still, I'm surprised it happened at all, since it was such a bad
decision. The FIFA series has been an extremely lucrative cash-cow for
EA; IIRC, about a third of their annual profits stem from that game
(and its lootboxes) alone. While the association with FIFA probably
wasn't a significant part of its success, the loss of that name after
so many years will cause customer confusion . Meanwhile, slimy as EAs
tactics may have been, its FIFA games were incredibly popular and gave
its customers exactly what they wanted, year after year. Its unlikely
that the new caretakers will be able to match that degree of quality
and success, so even if FIFA - the brand owner - gets a bigger share
of the profits, odds are those profits won't match what EA was making.
Like I said, it's lose-lost for both corporations.

Somehow I suspect that - in the end - this issue became less about
percentages and profits and more about intransigent and thin-skinned
C-level execs who were upset they couldn't have their way. We like to
think these "captains of industry" are long-viewed, clear-thinking
managers who carefully guide their companies towards profits, but - as
becomes more and more evident every year - these folk are flawed,
shallow individuals who can't take a refusal or insult and are willing
to risk their corporate charges for the stupidest of reasons. I've no
evidence to suggest this is what happened here, but it wouldn't
surprise me in the least.

On 5/10/2022 1:05 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>
> Somehow I suspect that - in the end - this issue became less about
> percentages and profits and more about intransigent and thin-skinned
> C-level execs who were upset they couldn't have their way. We like to
> think these "captains of industry" are long-viewed, clear-thinking
> managers who carefully guide their companies towards profits, but - as
> becomes more and more evident every year - these folk are flawed,
> shallow individuals who can't take a refusal or insult and are willing
> to risk their corporate charges for the stupidest of reasons. I've no
> evidence to suggest this is what happened here, but it wouldn't
> surprise me in the least.
>
>
From what I've seen and read, Big Business is less about making money
and much more about "how can I screw others over?" and always has been.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Tue, 10 May 2022 17:55:16 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>On 5/10/2022 1:05 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>
>> Somehow I suspect that - in the end - this issue became less about
>> percentages and profits and more about intransigent and thin-skinned
>> C-level execs who were upset they couldn't have their way. We like to
>> think these "captains of industry" are long-viewed, clear-thinking
>> managers who carefully guide their companies towards profits, but - as
>> becomes more and more evident every year - these folk are flawed,
>> shallow individuals who can't take a refusal or insult and are willing
>> to risk their corporate charges for the stupidest of reasons. I've no
>> evidence to suggest this is what happened here, but it wouldn't
>> surprise me in the least.
>>
>>
> From what I've seen and read, Big Business is less about making money
>and much more about "how can I screw others over?" and always has been.

I wanna say "that's not how it USED to be", but even the briefest
perusal of history shows that's incorrect. But I do think that it's
become more common.

In the past, a lot of companies couldn't afford to be so reckless with
their money because they'd too easily be overtaken by competitors or
simply go out of business. But with the ever-growing consolidation of
corporations and wealth into the hands of the few, there's less risk
and more money to throw around stupidly. Add to that a focus on
next-quarter profits rather than overall financial stability, and an
ever decreasing worry about C-levels or board-members being held
accountable for their actions, and million (or even billion) dollar
tantrums have become less unusual.

But perhaps I shouldn't be so critical. These are, after all, the
fabled "job creators" which must be protected lest the economy
quagmire. I'm sure they know what they're doing...

On 5/10/2022 8:28 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Tue, 10 May 2022 17:55:16 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> On 5/10/2022 1:05 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>>
>>> Somehow I suspect that - in the end - this issue became less about
>>> percentages and profits and more about intransigent and thin-skinned
>>> C-level execs who were upset they couldn't have their way. We like to
>>> think these "captains of industry" are long-viewed, clear-thinking
>>> managers who carefully guide their companies towards profits, but - as
>>> becomes more and more evident every year - these folk are flawed,
>>> shallow individuals who can't take a refusal or insult and are willing
>>> to risk their corporate charges for the stupidest of reasons. I've no
>>> evidence to suggest this is what happened here, but it wouldn't
>>> surprise me in the least.
>>>
>>>
>> From what I've seen and read, Big Business is less about making money
>> and much more about "how can I screw others over?" and always has been.
>
> I wanna say "that's not how it USED to be", but even the briefest
> perusal of history shows that's incorrect. But I do think that it's
> become more common.
>
> In the past, a lot of companies couldn't afford to be so reckless with
> their money because they'd too easily be overtaken by competitors or
> simply go out of business. But with the ever-growing consolidation of
> corporations and wealth into the hands of the few, there's less risk
> and more money to throw around stupidly. Add to that a focus on
> next-quarter profits rather than overall financial stability, and an
> ever decreasing worry about C-levels or board-members being held
> accountable for their actions, and million (or even billion) dollar
> tantrums have become less unusual.
>
> But perhaps I shouldn't be so critical. These are, after all, the
> fabled "job creators" which must be protected lest the economy
> quagmire. I'm sure they know what they're doing...
>
They know the best way to create jobs is to cut as many jobs as
possible.... :P

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

Am 10.05.22 um 22:05 schrieb Spalls Hurgenson:
> Well, apparently not, since EA has announced that - while there will
> still be an EA-published "FIFA 23", that will be the last one from
> them. After that, the license will revert back to FIFA and new
> association football games from them will bear the "EA Sports FC"
> branding
Does not seem to make much of a difference except 4 letters less in the
title (aka FIFA) as it seems the FIFA is really just the FIFA branding
on the box, the players etc... need to be negotiated with the different
country leagues independent of the FIFA. So the only change will be the
title the rest is up to the country leagues.
This looks more like a case of trying to get more money out of EA
because we are FIFA than anything else. For EA it probably was an easy
goodbye, one pesky entity out of a dozen, less to deal with.
That the FC in the new title probably is an abbreviation for F*** the
customers, is a different story, but oh well EA!

On 11/05/2022 14:48, Werner P. wrote:
> Am 10.05.22 um 22:05 schrieb Spalls Hurgenson:
>> Well, apparently not, since EA has announced that - while there will
>> still be an EA-published "FIFA 23", that will be the last one from
>> them. After that, the license will revert back to FIFA and new
>> association football games from them will bear the "EA Sports FC"
>> branding
> Does not seem to make much of a difference except 4 letters less in the
> title (aka FIFA) as it seems the FIFA is really just the FIFA branding
> on the box, the players etc... need to be negotiated with the different
> country leagues independent of the FIFA. So the only change will be the
> title the rest is up to the country leagues.
> This looks more like a case of trying to get more money out of EA
> because we are FIFA than anything else. For EA it probably was an easy
> goodbye, one pesky entity out of a dozen, less to deal with.
> That the FC in the new title probably is an abbreviation for F*** the
> customers, is a different story, but oh well EA!
>

Well FIFA have been a grubby little organisation for a long time. I
thought they couldn't top how they handled the various charges of
corruption (think of a broom and a carpet) but then we have a World Cup
awarded to Qatar. Yeh they've got a pretty dodgy humans rights record
but does it matter when we can see an opportunity to expand the FIFA
brand and make a big pile of cash in the process. Oh and that bit about
the World Cup must be in the summer as tradition demands - just make up
some stuff about air conditioned stadiums or something and we'll let you
move the date afterwards.

Am 12.05.22 um 10:08 schrieb JAB:
> Well FIFA have been a grubby little organisation for a long time. I
> thought they couldn't top how they handled the various charges of
> corruption (think of a broom and a carpet) but then we have a World Cup
> awarded to Qatar. Yeh they've got a pretty dodgy humans rights record
> but does it matter when we can see an opportunity to expand the FIFA
> brand and make a big pile of cash in the process. Oh and that bit about
> the World Cup must be in the summer as tradition demands - just make up
> some stuff about air conditioned stadiums or something and we'll let you
> move the date afterwards.
Well the FIFA, UEFA, the IOC every organisations which deals with such
events where tons of money is involved is ripe for jail regarding
corruption. The FIFA is just the most notorious one because those are
the ones constantly showing their corruption openly.

On 12/05/2022 17:20, Werner P. wrote:
> Am 12.05.22 um 10:08 schrieb JAB:
>> Well FIFA have been a grubby little organisation for a long time. I
>> thought they couldn't top how they handled the various charges of
>> corruption (think of a broom and a carpet) but then we have a World
>> Cup awarded to Qatar. Yeh they've got a pretty dodgy humans rights
>> record but does it matter when we can see an opportunity to expand the
>> FIFA brand and make a big pile of cash in the process. Oh and that bit
>> about the World Cup must be in the summer as tradition demands - just
>> make up some stuff about air conditioned stadiums or something and
>> we'll let you move the date afterwards.
> Well the FIFA, UEFA, the IOC every organisations which deals with such
> events where tons of money is involved is ripe for jail regarding
> corruption. The FIFA is just the most notorious one because those are
> the ones constantly showing their corruption openly.
>

Yeh, large organisations with this much money moving about are going to
have some level of corruption but with FIFA it's just so blatant,
considered as not really doing anything wrong and the way it's run isn't
for the betterment of football but instead the betterment of the senior
official's bank balance.

On Fri, 13 May 2022 09:12:07 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
>On 12/05/2022 17:20, Werner P. wrote:
>> Am 12.05.22 um 10:08 schrieb JAB:

>>> Well FIFA have been a grubby little organisation for a long time. I
>>> thought they couldn't top how they handled the various charges of
>>> corruption (think of a broom and a carpet) but then we have a World
>>> Cup awarded to Qatar. Yeh they've got a pretty dodgy humans rights
>>> record but does it matter when we can see an opportunity to expand the
>>> FIFA brand and make a big pile of cash in the process. Oh and that bit
>>> about the World Cup must be in the summer as tradition demands - just
>>> make up some stuff about air conditioned stadiums or something and
>>> we'll let you move the date afterwards.

>> Well the FIFA, UEFA, the IOC every organisations which deals with such
>> events where tons of money is involved is ripe for jail regarding
>> corruption. The FIFA is just the most notorious one because those are
>> the ones constantly showing their corruption openly.

>Yeh, large organisations with this much money moving about are going to
>have some level of corruption but with FIFA it's just so blatant,
>considered as not really doing anything wrong and the way it's run isn't
>for the betterment of football but instead the betterment of the senior
>official's bank balance.

As mentioned, the next FIFA game - FIFA23 - will still be developed by
EA. However, the one after that will apparently be a "non-simulation"
FIFA game. Odds are this means it will be a management sim, rather
than the sports/action the FIFA games are usually associated with.

Now, there's nothing wrong with sports management games; a lot of
people love them. Still, they are a comparatively tiny niche compared
to the number of action/sports titles, and can't help but make less
money. Yet this is the future FIFA has chosen for itself; apparently
it is so sure of the importance of its branding that its willing to
shoot itself in the foot like this rather than share with EA.

TL;DR; they're not only corrupt, they're stupid too. No wonder they
need to rely on underhanded dealing to make money.

Still, good on them. Let them fuck themselves over. Let EA get fucked.
I'm happy with both outcomes. Maybe we'll start seeing some
competition in the soccer game market, rather than one
microtransaction-riddled juggernaut destroying all others.

On 14/05/2022 00:14, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Fri, 13 May 2022 09:12:07 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
>> On 12/05/2022 17:20, Werner P. wrote:
>>> Am 12.05.22 um 10:08 schrieb JAB:
>
>>>> Well FIFA have been a grubby little organisation for a long time. I
>>>> thought they couldn't top how they handled the various charges of
>>>> corruption (think of a broom and a carpet) but then we have a World
>>>> Cup awarded to Qatar. Yeh they've got a pretty dodgy humans rights
>>>> record but does it matter when we can see an opportunity to expand the
>>>> FIFA brand and make a big pile of cash in the process. Oh and that bit
>>>> about the World Cup must be in the summer as tradition demands - just
>>>> make up some stuff about air conditioned stadiums or something and
>>>> we'll let you move the date afterwards.
>
>>> Well the FIFA, UEFA, the IOC every organisations which deals with such
>>> events where tons of money is involved is ripe for jail regarding
>>> corruption. The FIFA is just the most notorious one because those are
>>> the ones constantly showing their corruption openly.
>
>> Yeh, large organisations with this much money moving about are going to
>> have some level of corruption but with FIFA it's just so blatant,
>> considered as not really doing anything wrong and the way it's run isn't
>> for the betterment of football but instead the betterment of the senior
>> official's bank balance.
>
> As mentioned, the next FIFA game - FIFA23 - will still be developed by
> EA. However, the one after that will apparently be a "non-simulation"
> FIFA game. Odds are this means it will be a management sim, rather
> than the sports/action the FIFA games are usually associated with.
>
> Now, there's nothing wrong with sports management games; a lot of
> people love them. Still, they are a comparatively tiny niche compared
> to the number of action/sports titles, and can't help but make less
> money. Yet this is the future FIFA has chosen for itself; apparently
> it is so sure of the importance of its branding that its willing to
> shoot itself in the foot like this rather than share with EA.
>
> TL;DR; they're not only corrupt, they're stupid too. No wonder they
> need to rely on underhanded dealing to make money.
>
> Still, good on them. Let them fuck themselves over. Let EA get fucked.
> I'm happy with both outcomes. Maybe we'll start seeing some
> competition in the soccer game market, rather than one
> microtransaction-riddled juggernaut destroying all others.
>

A bit strange as they seem to be straying into the well established
Football Manager territory. As you say though the best outcome is that
both parties lose out!

As for FIFA branding, well it's kinda understandable that they are so
sure of themselves as they did get the South African government to make
unauthorised commercial activity in a WC stadium a criminal offence.