Siddharth Ganguly

FIFA YouTuber Danny Aarons Just Spent More On FC Points Than Most People Make In A Year

Danny Aarons, FC 26, Football YouTubers

On YouTube, visual spectacle is currency. If you’re reading this, you probably have heard about Danny Aarons, the YouTuber and Twitch streamer, notorious for his viral FIFA/EA FC pack openings and reactions.

Danny’s rise from Fortnite streams as a teenager to a full-blown content creator with 2 million subscribers on YouTube also stands on the strength of his videos.

Foraging into the neon-lit, pixelated market of footballers on EA FC, or FIFA as most people still refer to the famous gaming series, Danny Aarons has amassed a loyal fanbase, which has also made him a micro-celebrity in the UK YouTube and content creator circles. His rise has also received shades of Logan Paul, with him participating in a bout against ex-footballer Danny Simpson, who won the Premier League with Leicester City in their fairytale season.

His foray into becoming a true full-blown content creator and influencer has had its share of ups and downs, but there’s no denying the quality of his content and his ever-growing fanbase.

However, with every new video, a common critique often crops up. What could that be, you ask?

Well, the facet of spending real money, you know the one you use to buy your pack of crisps and cola at the department store, to get the in-game currency required to build the Ultimate Team on the FIFA games.

Microtransactions and spending on in-game currency are nothing new. Most games, especially free-to-play ones like Fortnite and Counter Strike, depend on microtransactions to keep their servers running and the developers getting paid in an industry notorious for allegedly underpaying staff. The FIFA games’ Ultimate Team mode is one of the most famous multiplayer modes in gaming history, with EA reportedly generating billions of dollars in revenue annually.

Most game developers, from Rockstar Games’ GTA Online to EA FC, have developed gaming systems dependent on micro-transactions to get the best in-game assets, like skins for Counter Strike, or dresses, weapons and houses in Grand Theft Auto.

However, EA FC, as the most popular sports simulation game in the world, offers in-game currency as a way to trade in the best players, including yesteryear legends like Zinedine Zidane and David Beckham, to make the player build the best possible team he can. EA FC 26 has recently come in the news for making “ZLATAN FC”, an eleven comprising of only Zlatan Ibrahimovic, as ridiculous as it may sound.

In the recent past, the people at EA had also made attempts to commercialise the game by allowing celebrities like Dua Lipa, Lewis Hamilton and DJ Snake as playable footballers in the game, a novel and appreciative approach in the series, which drew polarised reactions from hardcore fans but allowed more marketability for the franchise, allowing it to branch to fans of pop music and F1.

However, Danny Aarons’ dilemma isn’t that he is a playable character in the game or some extremely important footballer with an icon card in the game. It is his huge expenditure in EA FC’s game that has concerned a lot of people.

In his latest tweet, Danny’s in-game currency points to mammoth spending on the game, something that audiences are not at all happy with.

Fans have argued on the tone-deaf nature of Danny’s tweet, with users pointing out that the YouTuber probably paid $69,000 on a game. The absolute absurdity of the figure is compounded by the fact that most people in the world do not earn anywhere close to that amount in a single year.

However, the raging debate also arises in the aspect of the simplest of economic solutions: the phrase, “return of investment”. For a streamer whose income is generated by the anticipation and curiosity he sells online, with thousands of fans thronging to watch what player packs he can get his hands on, is it really a waste of money? Fans are understandably divided.

Danny’s job is to make streams for his ardent fans, and to build on the hype of getting newer player packs per episode. He obviously cannot do that without paying the game for it. Thus, the propensity of the debate arises with how it impacts his audience.

Viewers tune in for spectacle and instant dopamine. Creators supply that to keep engagement high.

While it is annoying to watch people spend money on in-game rewards, the experience and short-lived thrill of the videos is undeniable for viewers. Furthermore, it can be argued that the creator, Danny in this case, is not literally forcing anybody to pay truckloads of dollars on a game.

It is a known fact that most gameplay videos and streams are mostly watched by impressionable teen audiences, mostly male, who understandably want to emulate the things they see in their videos. So does Danny have a social responsibility to adhere to? Does he need to warn his audiences about spending responsibly on in-game players? That too, is debatable.

Danny Aarons’s success is notably straightforward, as in, he gives viewers high-stakes moments that trigger curiosity and emotional payoff. It helps him garner views and sponsorships. So he doesn’t hesitate to spend sums on the game. However, the ethical and moral question arises when we notice the impact Aarons’ content has own young viewers. There could be opinions that his spending encourages viewers to also spend on their games. It also leads to feelings of jealousy and inadequacy in audiences who can’t afford to spend as much, on their ultimate teams.

Electronic Arts, as a game company, have often received flak from far and wide for its capitalist approach toward Lootboxes and Player Packs, and Danny’s expenditure also lends fire to the controversy.

In short, Danny isn’t necessarily wrong in doing what he does, but fan reactions are equally valid.

The debate rages on.

Leave a comment