EA will remove old Washington team name from Madden NFL 21

Madden Nfl 21 Patrick Mahones
Madden Nfl 21 Patrick Mahones (Image credit: Electronic Arts)

What you need to know

  • Madden NFL 21 will remove mentions of the old Washington team name from the game.
  • Physical discs will receive the update in a Day One patch.
  • The change comes after the team announced it will get a new name after years of backlash.

Madden NFL 21 is set to release on Aug. 28, 2020 but Electronic Arts is still making changes to the game, specifically due to one current issue.

EA confirmed to Kotaku that it's removing all mentions of the old Washington NFL team's name and instead will be replacing it with a generic team while it waits for the new team name announcement.

The company also noted how it will apply the change. Since the game is ready for release, the name and logo will be removed in a Day One patch for physical disc players. As soon as the game connects to the internet, the change will be applied.

"Changes to the name and logo will come via title updates that will download automatically," a spokesperson told the publication. "The first changes will be available to our EA Access players and will include audio/commentary updates; motion graphics and presentation updates; stadium art, environments, crowd gear and signage updates; and uniform updates. Players may continue to see some outdated Washington references in other areas of the game at launch, but we are committed to removing all of those from the game in additional title updates coming shortly after launch."

The move comes after the team announced this week that it would be changing its name following years of controversy and outspoken statements from the Indigenous community. Previously, team owner Dan Snyder said that the team would never change its name. However, it made the announcement after companies like FedEx, which is a amajor sponsor of the team, said it would stop investing if the name didn't change. Nike also allegedly removed Washington team merch from its stores.

Madden NFL 21 is set to release on Aug. 28, 2020 for Xbox One, PC, and PS4.

Xbox (opens in new tab)

Main

Carli Velocci
Gaming Lead, Copy Chief

Carli is the Gaming Editor and Copy Chief across Windows Central, Android Central, and iMore. Her last name also will remind you of a dinosaur. Follow her on Twitter or email her at carli.velocci@futurenet.com.

30 Comments
  • This world is hysterical how sensitive it has become.
  • Says the I assume non-native american? It shouldn't have to explained that the term of the old team name is an antiquated term meant to put down an entire group of population and shouldn't be used in the current time frame. Terms used to describe groups of people tend to change in acceptability over time. This is not a new fight. This is highly offensive to some people and its taken far too long to have this changed. This is a fight from 20 years ago and its really sad that its taken THIS long to change. It shows that this group of people have been and continue to be oppressed for too long.
  • Says the I assume non-native american virtue signaler? You're arguing self-righteously from ignorance. No one names themselves a derogatory term. The name honored a coach, an American Indian designed the logo, a Washington Post survey from a few years ago found that 90% of American Indians were not offended by it, and the Choctaw word from which we get Oklahoma means "red people." The only people who care about it are grievance-mongers and their Useful Idiots.
  • See below on why that polling shouldn't be relied on as the absolute truth. Also, just because something may not be meant as offensive, or even meant as a good intention, doesn't mean its not insensitive to a group of people. Meanings also change over the years and so do feelings. Remember was the "polite" term for blacks were in the 50s. Pardon me for attempting to explain why someone might feel a certain way. You may think I'm being self righteous, but im really just trying to actually put myself in other's shoes and try to understand how they may feel. Maybe try it someday? Hell, I'm just now forcing myself to not call them the "I" word we were all taught in school to say by our false history. I'm no defender of the innocent by any means.
  • "Absolute truth" is a straw man. And no, you're not "putting yourself in other's shoes"; you're repeating grievance-mongers' propaganda. There's nothing wrong with "Indian." (And if you think that "Negro" is offensive, then you're protesting the UNCF and the NAACP, right?) Russell Means was an American Indian activist so committed to Indian rights that he took up arms against the federal government. He said that he was fine with "Indian." You're not listening to the people who matter. You're virtue signaling.
  • I guess you are right. Indian in itself isn't offensive, although its just not at all accurate. It is when the word is used in describing something that isn't even associated with that culture that it becomes something different. "Indian giver" is the best example that comes to mind that i still hear on a nearly daily basis, which is extremely ironic considering the colonies or US government were the ones that gave and took away. To your latter point, I actually do have a problem with that word used in those foundations. I even have a problem with the term Africian American because the entire world's human population came from Africa and not all black or dark people came directly from Africa in the past few centuries. Then again, its their choice if they want to use that term, its not mine. Im just saying, go use that term in the black community right now and see if offense is taken. It is no longer completely acceptable as it was in that time.
  • This is only offensive to white liberals. Native Americans still use the term 'Indian' to refer to themselves.
  • ...and this name change is only bothering white conservative males (see how generalizing entire groups of people sucks and is wrong?). I'm sure that the native American population is glad that they can come to you to be told how they feel about a name that describes them. I would think that most of them would rather be called "Indian" and not "Red Skin", but that should really be for them to say what's acceptable, not white liberals or anyone else.
  • "glad that they can come to you to be told how they feel about a name that describes them" They should come to you instead? Someone who's swallowing whole Marxist propaganda? Stop talking for hundreds of nations, white savior.
  • Nice response considering I already answered your question in my last line. How about actually READING what someone says before responding?
  • Why is it that only white's find the name change bothersome? Everyone else besides white males like yourself seem to think the name change is a good thing.
  • You're arguing from ignorance. A handful of race-mongers -- amplified by leftist clowns like Fredo Cuomo and Don Lemon -- do not speak for hundreds of American Indian nations.
  • No some things are just finally starting to change for the better
  • Its the same game every year anyways. Just play one and you played all.
  • It's always best to be considerate of others. "Redskins" is offensive to Native Americans and is easily changed.
  • I mean, maybe some. But surveys have shown that 90% or more on average of course are not offended.
  • Shh they'll ban you now days. Lol
  • This was also true when it came to Speedy Gonzales. But white guilt pervails again
  • 90% of who? Who are the ones taking taking this survey you reference?
  • https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/08/10/poll-of-native-american...
  • https://www.nbcsports.com/washington/washington-redskins/new-poll-finds-...
  • Those numbers are... surprising. Though it can be said that surveys of only a few hundred people can't really give you an overall knowledge of how most people actually feel on a subject. Hopefully those polls are really from all over the country like they said.
  • The poll in question was not scientifically sound. Researchers had a look at it and came to very different conclusions: https://www.washingtonian.com/2020/02/21/a-new-study-contradicts-a-washi...
  • Thanks for that, that makes a lot more sense. This is the reason why I tell myself not to be shocked or to readily believe a poll. I actuallu have heard of the below reasoning before in a different situation. "There’s very good data that shows when you do a call versus online, it changes peoples’ responses. When you call, people are more likely to give positive and socially desirable answers. And then they only allowed as answers to their question, “are you offended, are you indifferent, are you not bothered?” Native people telling a person they don’t know that they’re “offended,” that’s a strong emotion." Makes a lot of sense.
  • Surprising because you live in a leftist echo chamber on a steady diet of statist propaganda.
  • Unless the entire native population has been polled, then your link is useless. Anyone can be polled to get results that fit a certain narrative. Also you have to dig deeper and see who are the advertisers of the media outlet that's created the poll. Always follow the money.
  • https://thefederalist.com/2020/07/18/poll-less-than-30-percent-of-americ...
  • Source? You're arguing from ignorance.
  • Thank you for finding these Oops that was supposed to be a reply
  • Good. And, it's about time the Washington franchise joined the rest of the intelligent and civilized world...a move so long overdue.