Hdog2412 said:EA legit has $1000 dollar paywall blocks for a game you still have to pay $70 dollars a year for. EA should 100% pay these players more.
We are stuck with a lot of the same names because EA doesn’t want to pay, most of the older players we get work in broadcasting so the NFL has there rights still meaning EA automatically gets them.
Last year Carmichael wasn’t in the game because Jonny Wilson was 6”7 so they didn’t pay Carmichael because Wilson was free it’s a joke
Do you want every player that ever set foot on an NFL field. If Yes, that’s cool, but what value does each name add to the MUT product? I’m sure Joe Montana’s likeness sells for a completely different reason than Harold Carmichael (which may play to your Johnny Wilson example).
In any case, you just did exactly what I argued most people do regarding this topic: They see a figure (in your example, estimated revenue), and you then argued that EA should pay more for the NIL rights. Until I see an NIL contract, nothing will make me think these players that signed are being forced at gunpoint to give up their NIL. You’ll play MUT whether or not Carmichael is in the game, and NIL likely translates very little to whether or not users spend cash toward MUT.
I for one would rather have a product that is relatively bug-free, and we’ll never get that if EA pays $100,000 for Carmichael’s NIL because it’s a “fair” [arbitrary percentage established without knowledge of budget] of [uncertain gross revenue].
