Some constructive criticism for SI et al

For FM11 my suggestions are as follows : -

1.Allow retail outlets only to sell to ensure game is available to all and sundry on the same day;

2.Avail of select users of this forum in the testing process;

3.Release the beta version/demo 4-5 weeks before scheduled release to allow for greater feedback and to allow bugs to be dealt with as far as possible before final release;

4.Improve the match engine and please ensure reported issues in FM2010 are not continued in FM11 - so, for example, corners, penalties, one on ones are improved.

5.Don't add many new features. Add in "floodlights" for midweek games, maybe allow an option to use a skin which your club's stadium (or colours or something else) to be used as background. Add more variety to press conferences. Improve transfer markets - my suggestion would be for a manager to be able to offer a list of targets to his chairman who can do the negotiations. Allow some more flexibility for budgets if a "star signing" is imminent. Improve team talks - why can't the captain do them? Modify morale/motivation and confidence to be more in line with common sense. Simplify tactics so that Chelsea don't get beat at home to Wolves because the AI has figured out how Chelsea play (respect to Wolves). Bring more focus back on player quality. Basically, however, overall the focus should be to stick to what is there and improve it.

6.If people want to know when a patch will be released, tell them, using your own discretion as to who is/isn't trolling.

7.Clarify more clearly the necessary graphics/requirements at the point of sale;

8.Fix the crash defects;

9.Put your consumers first.

That said, I can't see myself buying FM11 - the crash bug this year and the manner its been handled by SI has put me off. That may change if the FM11 forums are awash with relentless praise for the crash free and practically bug free FM11.

1. What about all the people who buy FM through Steam?

2. Everyone on the forum offers their opinions on how to improve the game, and some users already are a part of the testing team.

3. Agree with this.

5. The chairman doesn't do the negotiations irl, the manager does. Same for team talks, the captain may be asked to speak occasionally, but the manager is the one who does the majority of the team talks.

6. Most people knew when the 2nd patch was being released, and the 3rd one is being thrown our way sometime in February.

8. That's basically saying each user should fix their own computer, as the crash problems are happening on some computers and not others. It's the computers who are at fault, not the game.

9. I think they do.

I can understand your frustrations bud, but is it really necessary to take this approach and even create a thread of your own to vent?

You have been warned in a previous thread so I would tread carefully. If you were expecting a reaction then I'm afraid you won't get it

I can understand your frustrations bud, but is it really necessary to take this approach and even create a thread of your own to vent?

You have been warned in a previous thread so I would tread carefully. If you were expecting a reaction then I'm afraid you won't get it

Free speach. Constructive criticism. What warning?

*** I am answering this as a forum poster, not a mod ***

1) welcome to the modern world

2) forum users are invited to beta test

3) 4-5 weeks before release is too late - the code has almost definitely already gone to the disc manufacturers then

7) You've lost me - they're already on the box.

The others I have no real opinion on!

FWIW #2 has been done for a number of years now.

1. What about all the people who buy FM through Steam?

2. Everyone on the forum offers their opinions on how to improve the game, and some users already are a part of the testing team.

3. Agree with this.

5. The chairman doesn't do the negotiations irl, the manager does. Same for team talks, the captain may be asked to speak occasionally, but the manager is the one who does the majority of the team talks.

6. Most people knew when the 2nd patch was being released, and the 3rd one is being thrown our way sometime in February.

8. That's basically saying each user should fix their own computer, as the crash problems are happening on some computers and not others. It's the computers who are at fault, not the game.

9. I think they do.

1.Of course - the aim is to ensure same day availability to all, thereby not treating small independent retailers like second class;

2.Not enough aparently;

3.Agreed.

4.No 4?

5.As far as I know its actually the chairmen who are heavily involved in the negotiations. Its their money.

6. When they asked, they were shot down. "Sometime before Christmas" was announced, but I can't agree with their policies on further clarification;

7.No 7?

8.Disagree.

9.Disagree. Most corporate entities have the sole objection of making cash - even if they tell you otherwise.

i actually think the op was very well put. no swearing and i cant say its a rant. criticism is allowed when its constructive and this post seems to be that way. just my take on it tho.....

1. not enough places sell fm10. only place i could buy it was game. i hate that shop so i resented parting with my money lol.

2. i believe this is already happening?

3. good idea.

4. it will take a long time 2 get this right. i feel theres other areas that if improved will make the game a lot better. people only seem to moan about the match engine when they are losing games

5. if u take away things like being able to sort out who your going to sign, then what are you exactly going to do on the game? im sure most people like sorting things themselves

6. they give a rough date for when a patch will be out. i dont think they could be precise.

7. how do u suggest SI go about this?

8. i have had 2 crashes since release day. its not the game thats the problem

9. i think SI should listen when people are reasonable. sadly, sometimes threads on here are very ott.

1.Of course - the aim is to ensure same day availability to all, thereby not treating small independent retailers like second class;

2.Not enough aparently;

3.Agreed.

4.No 4?

5.As far as I know its actually the chairmen who are heavily involved in the negotiations. Its their money.

6. When they asked, they were shot down. "Sometime before Christmas" was announced, but I can't agree with their policies on further clarification;

7.No 7?

8.Disagree.

9.Disagree. Most corporate entities have the sole objection of making cash - even if they tell you otherwise.

1. The aim is that everyone that wants the game, gets the game. I don't see a problem with the current set up.

2. If you want to become a tester, apply.

3. Great!

4. I had nothing to say.

5. Don't you see all the posts on this forum complaining about how the players' chairmen accept bids for their players over their heads? Can you imagine the riots we'd get if chairmen did everything to do with transfers?

6. 'Just before Christmas' I personally think is a good roundabout time, seeing as that was told to us in November.

7. Again: nothing to say.

8. Care to say why?

9. So... all the people who are welcomed and looked after on these forums will obviously say they're not even needed by SI, right?

SI need us, and therefore they look after us.

*** I am answering this as a forum poster, not a mod ***

1) welcome to the modern world

2) forum users are invited to beta test

3) 4-5 weeks before release is too late - the code has almost definitely already gone to the disc manufacturers then

7) You've lost me - they're already on the box.

The others I have no real opinion on!

Keeping sequence,

1.Fairness first. People were going ape on these forums because some retailers sent games out early to "beat the postal strike". And some believed that. Some were changing to and from companys. Laughable.

2.So why so many bugs? Would seem more are needed;

3.Then I guess that points becomes moot.

7. If your computer specs exceed the specs stated on the box and the game continually crashes, something is wrong - and I have utter contempt/disdain for anyone who would or could blame the consumer is such a case (ie the "its must be the computer cult")

1. The aim is that everyone that wants the game, gets the game. I don't see a problem with the current set up.

2. If you want to become a tester, apply.

3. Great!

4. I had nothing to say.

5. Don't you see all the posts on this forum complaining about how the players' chairmen accept bids for their players over their heads? Can you imagine the riots we'd get if chairmen did everything to do with transfers?

6. 'Just before Christmas' I personally think is a good roundabout time, seeing as that was told to us in November.

7. Again: nothing to say.

8. Care to say why?

9. So... all the people who are welcomed and looked after on these forums will obviously say they're not even needed by SI, right?

SI need us, and therefore they look after us.

1.Fairness to the small, independent retailer.

2.No. Game would only crash regularly enough and that, no matter what machine I was using, would be my computer's fault.

3.ditto.

4.ditto.

5,Reality is what it is.

7.fine.

8.The specs on my machine far exceed the specs on the box. My machine is new. I've had a second opinion - its not my computer.

9.see reply to 5.

1.Fairness to the small, independent retailer.

2.No. Game would only crash regularly enough and that, no matter what machine I was using, would be my computer's fault.

3.ditto.

4.ditto.

5,Reality is what it is.

7.fine.

8.The specs on my machine far exceed the specs on the box. My machine is new. I've had a second opinion - its not my computer.

9.see reply to 5.

2. If you're not willing to offer help to improve the game and get the bugs out, what gives you the right to complain?

8. If it's not your machine, then why does it crash on some people's computers, and not others?

2. If you're not willing to offer help to improve the game and get the bugs out, what gives you the right to complain?

8. If it's not your machine, then why does it crash on some people's computers, and not others?

2.The fact that I bought the game. I've offered constructive criticism - particulary with match play engine. Problem is some delicates interpret that as "complaining". A very basic run of the released FM10 showed obvious bugs - eg longs shots, defenders tacking etc - pretty obvious and hardly necessitating someone of my own particular intelligence to notice them. Some bugs, as you may have read yourself, were very obvious. Crash is a defect.

8.Are you saying there are that many dud computers. Have you ever purchased a dud pair of shoes. If you have, perhaps you will appreciate that you may have been unfortunate in buying an isolated pair, or perhaps the shop you bought from got a defective batch, or perhaps some shoes are duds, some aren't. If you ever have the sole fall from your shoe, remeber, its your feet, not the shoe.

i think they should re-introduce stadium development like on FM1999 and Fm2000

2.The fact that I bought the game. I've offered constructive criticism - particulary with match play engine. Problem is some delicates interpret that as "complaining". A very basic run of the released FM10 showed obvious bugs - eg longs shots, defenders tacking etc - pretty obvious and hardly necessitating someone of my own particular intelligence to notice them. Some bugs, as you may have read yourself, were very obvious. Crash is a defect.

8.Are you saying there are that many dud computers. Have you ever purchased a dud pair of shoes. If you have, perhaps you will appreciate that you may have been unfortunate in buying an isolated pair, or perhaps the shop you bought from got a defective batch, or perhaps some shoes are duds, some aren't. If you ever have the sole fall from your shoe, remeber, its your feet, not the shoe.

2. Okay, you've offered concrit. Good for you! But you're not prepared to put any effort into making game better, are you? If everyone at SI and on these forums felt that way, I'd say the game would fail pretty quickly.

3. Well... That's the 2nd worse comparison I have ever seen, losing to the car one of course. Are you comparing the game to feet, and computers to shoes?

If so, you should know that a batch of shoes are all made of the same material, etc, etc, while each computer is completely different to its neighbour. Each computer therefore reacts differently, which explains why some people (a small number) are getting crashes, which the SI people are doing their best to fix. A huge number of people have said they aren't getting crashes. Are you saying that they are lying?

Yeah to be fair we don't expect every user to be a 'tester' for us, just by purchasing the product they of course are entitled to their opinion. But yeah, obviously we're all striving for the best thing, a totally bug free experience as realistic as possible - the best way of doing so is by working together in one giant Football Manager happy family!

(And yes, I can't believe I've written something that cheesy.)

Very cheesey. You should be banned for such an infraction. Bug free is an ideal. It becomes a distant possibility if the developpers continue to run too far ahead of themselves. There is a mass of potential with FM10 but equally a mass of bugs/crash problems etc. Surely SI should address them before trying more new features. The double advantage is that in doing so, apart from improving their game, they get more time to test improvements.

To respond to the OP in order:

1. Huh? If you want to completely control game availability the best thing to do is not to sell through any retail outlets and go for an entirely digital distribution. Why do you care anyway?

2. Quick question for you: exactly how many testers does SI use at the moment? How many do you think would be enough?

3. The big problem with betas/demos is that you need sufficiently well-developed code to provide a satisying experience (nobody's going to buy a game if the demo's rubbish) but also enough time to fix any problems that arise as a result of the beta/demo. This is something all companies struggle with and while it'd be nice to have more time between demo and release I don't see how you can do that in the real world. I suspect a lot of the demo feedback is incorporated into the first patch, though.

4. Everyone wants an improved match engine, obviously. What specific corner problem are you referring to? Also, I've never had much a of a problem with penalties, though other users have.

5. I agree here. At the moment there seem to be a few too many features that are only half-implemented. I know the publishers love new features as advertising tools but maybe a "consolidation" release with fewer new features every few years wouldn't be such a bad idea.

6. Since patch release dates are constantly changing giving firm dates and then missing them simply antagonises people even more.

7. Check back of the box.

8. If only it were that simple. Your point makes it sound like SI want these crashes in their game. If it was a console game you'd have a point, but developing for PCs will always make it extremely difficult, if not actually impossible, to eliminate crashes.

9. I think you may want to look at the level of developer/publisher involvement on these forums. SI are one of the better companies I've seen for interacting with their customers on a useful level. Just because you still have issues with the game, doesn't mean everyone does and it doesn't mean SI have any personal vendetta against you.

I think constructive criticism is great! it is the cornerstone of a free populace. Having said that, I think it is also important to remember how good we actually have it. I live in the U.S. and if you think this kind of customer service is standard, then I would encourage you to look into many American and Canadian gaming companies (EA, etc.) Giving those mega-companies any feedback is like sticking your head down a mine shaft and screaming just to hear your own echo. They RARELY give you feedback and they change their games according to their own input (it would seem). OP, I applaud your critique. I caution you to be cognizant of the fact that SI seems to truly listen and value feedback. Having said all this: 'you go, girl!!!'

2. Okay, you've offered concrit. Good for you! But you're not prepared to put any effort into making game better, are you? If everyone at SI and on these forums felt that way, I'd say the game would fail pretty quickly.

3. Well... That's the 2nd worse comparison I have ever seen, losing to the car one of course. Are you comparing the game to feet, and computers to shoes?

If so, you should know that a batch of shoes are all made of the same material, etc, etc, while each computer is completely different to its neighbour. Each computer therefore reacts differently, which explains why some people (a small number) are getting crashes, which the SI people are doing their best to fix. A huge number of people have said they aren't getting crashes. Are you saying that they are lying?

2.SI's business (and which is undoubtably a major success) is to produce the game - with the profits etc go the duty/responsibility to get it right. I can point out that there are too many long shots, but I don't have the expertise to fix it. Some posters have been shot down for claiming they feel like testers as opposed to conumers and are effectively working for free. Don't mix up the paramaters. But if volunteers offer help, SI can avail of that and maybe they should do so more often. However, I imagine protecting secrets, game ideas, etc limits options.

8.Point is if you bought a dud pair and the retailer told you it was your feet, would you believe him? If he said that most of the shoes he sells are fine to back up his point, you still wouldn't believe him (I presume). My machine is not unusual. Can only direct you to the bugs forum. Are you saying all these people are wrong? How many people say they are not getting crashes? How many say they are? The concern of SI should be how many say they are. That's putting the consumer first. Problem here is those concerns have been met by "well I'm not having a problem with mine so you must be talking gibberish or it must be your computer" which is a perplexing, but not unusual, form of vanity/stupidity. If it is computers, then SI should, at the point of sale, warn that a considerable number of machines will not run the game properly and that in such cases, the game will crash. Perhaps Jacobsen should have addressed this in his pre-game, new feature, episodes!

2.SI's business (and which is undoubtably a major success) is to produce the game - with the profits etc go the duty/responsibility to get it right. I can point out that there are too many long shots, but I don't have the expertise to fix it. Some posters have been shot down for claiming they feel like testers as opposed to conumers and are effectively working for free. Don't mix up the paramaters. But if volunteers offer help, SI can avail of that and maybe they should do so more often. However, I imagine protecting secrets, game ideas, etc limits options.

No one's asking you to fix it. If you become a tester for FM11, you won't be asked to help with the programming. You'll be asked to point out bugs, which will help everyone. There are hundreds of testers. I doubt SI can keep their "secrets" from all of them. It's a love of the game that makes us play. It should be the love of the game that makes us accept that nothing in life will ever be perfect also.

8.Point is if you bought a dud pair and the retailer told you it was your feet' date=' would you believe him? If he said that most of the shoes he sells are fine to back up his point, you still wouldn't believe him (I presume). My machine is not unusual. Can only direct you to the bugs forum. Are you saying all these people are wrong? How many people say they are not getting crashes? How many say they are? The concern of SI should be how many say they are. That's putting the consumer first. Problem here is those concerns have been met by "well I'm not having a problem with mine so you must be talking gibberish or it must be your computer" which is a perplexing, but not unusual, form of vanity/stupidity. If it is computers, then SI should, at the point of sale, warn that a considerable number of machines will not run the game properly and that in such cases, the game will crash. Perhaps Jacobsen should have addressed this in his pre-game, new feature, episodes![/quote']

Okay, the shoe thing is a very bad comparison, which does not work. Okay?

SI have fixed the crashes for a lot of people. But just look at the problem. Person A has bought the game, and has had no crashes. Person B has bought the game, and finds it unplayable because of the crashes. Now, they both have the same game. The only difference between them is the computers they are playing on. Personally, I don't think this way of reasoning is stupid.

SI always put the customer first, I have always found SI very helpful. I can never install the patch (because I'm not a computer person!) but SI are always very quick to reply with an idiot proof guide on how to install the patch. You cant beat that kind of customer service!

I dont think the game needs much work done to it to be fair. A little tweak here and there perhaps to smooth it out but other than that its quiet comprehensive and realistic.

To respond to the OP in order:

1. Huh? If you want to completely control game availability the best thing to do is not to sell through any retail outlets and go for an entirely digital distribution. Why do you care anyway?

2. Quick question for you: exactly how many testers does SI use at the moment? How many do you think would be enough?

3. The big problem with betas/demos is that you need sufficiently well-developed code to provide a satisying experience (nobody's going to buy a game if the demo's rubbish) but also enough time to fix any problems that arise as a result of the beta/demo. This is something all companies struggle with and while it'd be nice to have more time between demo and release I don't see how you can do that in the real world. I suspect a lot of the demo feedback is incorporated into the first patch, though.

4. Everyone wants an improved match engine, obviously. What specific corner problem are you referring to? Also, I've never had much a of a problem with penalties, though other users have.

5. I agree here. At the moment there seem to be a few too many features that are only half-implemented. I know the publishers love new features as advertising tools but maybe a "consolidation" release with fewer new features every few years wouldn't be such a bad idea.

6. Since patch release dates are constantly changing giving firm dates and then missing them simply antagonises people even more.

7. Check back of the box.

8. If only it were that simple. Your point makes it sound like SI want these crashes in their game. If it was a console game you'd have a point, but developing for PCs will always make it extremely difficult, if not actually impossible, to eliminate crashes.

9. I think you may want to look at the level of developer/publisher involvement on these forums. SI are one of the better companies I've seen for interacting with their customers on a useful level. Just because you still have issues with the game, doesn't mean everyone does and it doesn't mean SI have any personal vendetta against you.

1.read the posts;

2.not relevant. Point is many obvious bugs were on the released and first patched version. read the forums as you will;

3.I've already conceded (if you read above) this point is moot;

4.The corner problem that others have mentioned. Some have it some dont. Is that the computer's fault as well?

5.My whole point.

6.What antagonises people is not knowing in December when they can plan to start a career game for a game they bought in November.

7.I do. Specs of my computer far exceed specs on box. Game still crashes.

8.So say this at the point of sale;

9.SI will probably acknowledge that they have benefitted from the posters on the forum as well.

Very cheesey. You should be banned for such an infraction. Bug free is an ideal. It becomes a distant possibility if the developpers continue to run too far ahead of themselves. There is a mass of potential with FM10 but equally a mass of bugs/crash problems etc. Surely SI should address them before trying more new features. The double advantage is that in doing so, apart from improving their game, they get more time to test improvements.

If I ban him, will it make you happy?

No one's asking you to fix it. If you become a tester for FM11, you won't be asked to help with the programming. You'll be asked to point out bugs, which will help everyone. There are hundreds of testers. I doubt SI can keep their "secrets" from all of them. It's a love of the game that makes us play. It should be the love of the game that makes us accept that nothing in life will ever be perfect also.

Okay, the shoe thing is a very bad comparison, which does not work. Okay?

SI have fixed the crashes for a lot of people. But just look at the problem. Person A has bought the game, and has had no crashes. Person B has bought the game, and finds it unplayable because of the crashes. Now, they both have the same game. The only difference between them is the computers they are playing on. Personally, I don't think this way of reasoning is stupid.

And if the specs on person B's computer far exceed the specs of the game packaging?

If I ban him, will it make you happy?

No. But if he starts turning on the water works, do as you will.

For FM11 my suggestions are as follows : -

1.Allow retail outlets only to sell to ensure game is available to all and sundry on the same day;

You said you could only get in game? Well i got online and sent to me on release date and saw it advertise and on sale in plenty of other places look around.

2.Avail of select users of this forum in the testing process;

They have loads of testers and repsonse to a lot of feed back on forum.

3.Release the beta version/demo 4-5 weeks before scheduled release to allow for greater feedback and to allow bugs to be dealt with as far as possible before final release;

As SI response

4.Improve the match engine and please ensure reported issues in FM2010 are not continued in FM11 - so, for example, corners, penalties, one on ones are improved.

5.Don't add many new features. Add in "floodlights" for midweek games, maybe allow an option to use a skin which your club's stadium (or colours or something else) to be used as background. Add more variety to press conferences. Improve transfer markets - my suggestion would be for a manager to be able to offer a list of targets to his chairman who can do the negotiations. Allow some more flexibility for budgets if a "star signing" is imminent. Improve team talks - why can't the captain do them? Modify morale/motivation and confidence to be more in line with common sense. Simplify tactics so that Chelsea don't get beat at home to Wolves because the AI has figured out how Chelsea play (respect to Wolves). Bring more focus back on player quality. Basically, however, overall the focus should be to stick to what is there and improve it.

These are fair enough but some of these take time and need people feedback when playing

6.If people want to know when a patch will be released, tell them, using your own discretion as to who is/isn't trolling. They do

7.Clarify more clearly the necessary graphics/requirements at the point of sale;

Says on the box

8.Fix the crash defects;

as it explains this more computer base the game. I have loaded on a laptop and PC and never experienced a crash at all.

9.Put your consumers first.

They do i think you need to get a grip and read forum and send a postive reply.

That said, I can't see myself buying FM11 - the crash bug this year and the manner its been handled by SI has put me off. That may change if the FM11 forums are awash with relentless praise for the crash free and practically bug free FM11.

Hope you see amount people replies and see the errors in your ways. There is hardly any games out that are bug free, it virtually in posisble specially the bigger the game and more data you have it in. But guess you are not integlliant enough to releasie this.

TIE.. With regards point 8, you seem to have become hung up on the concept that your PC is crashing despite you having more than the minimum spec. Your friend from Dell is right, i don't disagree that your PC isn't up to the task.

Its not the level of specification that is causing your crashes. Its perhaps a conflict between them.

I.e. individually your graphics card and processor are up to the challenge. But there is perhaps a conflict between them that is causing the issue.

To use a Slashdot style car analogy its like trying to reach 200mph in a Ferrari running on diesel. You have the machine to do it, but theres something not quite right under the hood.

And if the specs on person B's computer far exceed the specs of the game packaging?

The specs aren't the only thing affecting how the game performs. The specs, memory usage and availablity, what software you already have, whether any of your background programmes interfere with FM... even if some random bug from the internet finds its way into the your computer, all effect how your computer will handle FM.

Hope you see amount people replies and see the errors in your ways. There is hardly any games out that are bug free, it virtually in posisble specially the bigger the game and more data you have it in. But guess you are not integlliant enough to releasie this.

Obviously not. Maybe someday I will achieve your levels of wisdom, starting with a basic accumen to read a forum and retain its contents before posting as you have, and what you have. Please relay my regards to your fellow intelelcts.

TIE.. With regards point 8, you seem to have become hung up on the concept that your PC is crashing despite you having more than the minimum spec. Your friend from Dell is right, i don't disagree that your PC isn't up to the task.

Its not the level of specification that is causing your crashes. Its perhaps a conflict between them.

I.e. individually your graphics card and processor are up to the challenge. But there is perhaps a conflict between them that is causing the issue.

To use a Slashdot style car analogy its like trying to reach 200mph in a Ferrari running on diesel. You have the machine to do it, but theres something not quite right under the hood.

OK - but how is it fixed? And if such clarify as you have offered had been offered at the point of sale, I would have less cause of complaint.

The specs aren't the only thing affecting how the game performs. The specs, memory usage and availablity, what software you already have, whether any of your background programmes interfere with FM... even if some random bug from the internet finds its way into the your computer, all effect how your computer will handle FM.

Should this not be clarified at the point of sale?

Should this not be clarified at the point of sale?

Shouldn't this be common sense?

A computer is a machine that relies not only on its components, but also on its programming and what's within that programming.

Lets keep this on topic without the personal comments please guys.

2.not relevant. Point is many obvious bugs were on the released and first patched version. read the forums as you will;

6.What antagonises people is not knowing in December when they can plan to start a career game for a game they bought in November.

7.I do. Specs of my computer far exceed specs on box. Game still crashes.

2. That's just part and parcel of the games industry nowadays I'm afraid. As internet access has become the norm and speeds have increased, developers have been able to rely on patches more then ever. Just look at how patches have crept into the console side of things. And lets not forget that developers are often under pressure from the publisher to get the game out and onto the market, especially sports games and movie tie-ins where they want to try and time the release with a specific event. You could have a whole army of Beta testers and they could spot every single problem, but if the developers don't have time to fix them, there is nothing they can do about it.

6. Personally, I much prefer rough release dates for patches rather then fixed ones. Sure, it might annoy people, but I'd imagine the anger of SI missing a deadline they set in stone would be far far greater.

7. Just because your computer far exceeds the specs doesn't mean it will necesarilly work and that it is a problem with the game. On my old, decrepid computer, Morrowind ran perfectly fine, yet it won't run at all on my new computer which has far higher specs yet all of my other games are running without a problem. I know it's not the game as I've played it numerous times but I don't know whats causing it. And this is the problem with programs on PC's. If the crashes are happening to what is likely only a small number of users, then saying what is causing the problem is very difficult, especially if they are happening at different times for each user. Although it could be a problem with the game that is extremley rare, it's just as likely that it is something on your system causing them.

Shouldn't this be common sense?

A computer is a machine that relies not only on its components, but also on its programming and what's within that programming.

No - D don't think it's common sense. Common sense would be to check the box and know your specs to see if your machine can run it. The problem here is that if it turns out that it can't (even for a valid reason as you have suggested), that is a "hidden trap" for a consumer - and who won't get a refund on that basis - so more clarity should be offered at the point of sale. I think given the level of sales the game would expect the generate, it is unwise to assume all consumers will have the insights you (or others) may have.

No - D don't think it's common sense. Common sense would be to check the box and know your specs to see if your machine can run it. The problem here is that if it turns out that it can't (even for a valid reason as you have suggested), that is a "hidden trap" for a consumer - and who won't get a refund on that basis - so more clarity should be offered at the point of sale. I think given the level of sales the game would expect the generate, it is unwise to assume all consumers will have the insights you (or others) may have.

A computer is a very complicated machine. SI can't possibly test every single computer configuration out there.

What's not to understand?

A computer is a very complicated machine. SI can't possibly test every single computer configuration out there.

What's not to understand?

For the last time - A consumer relies on what written on the box to see if it will run on his machine. If the specs on his machine far exceed what is written on the box, he is entitled to assume the game will run on his machine. If it doesn't, and he is refused a refund, that is unfair, and in my view, unlawful. If a gamer is aware that this can happen (or has a history of happening), the responsibility is on the manufacturer and/or retailer to bring this to the attention of the consumer and ensure a refund is available in such circumstances, which as far as I know, is not the case with the retailer I used or the manufacturer in question.

For the last time - A consumer relies on what written on the box to see if it will run on his machine. If the specs on his machine far exceed what is written on the box, he is entitled to assume the game will run on his machine. If it doesn't, and he is refused a refund, that is unfair, and in my view, unlawful. If a gamer is aware that this can happen (or has a history of happening), the responsibility is on the manufacturer and/or retailer to bring this to the attention of the consumer and ensure a refund is available in such circumstances, which as far as I know, is not the case with the retailer I used or the manufacturer in question.

Okay... let me speak in small sentences.

Yes. SI put the specs on the back of the box. They say that computers up to standard will run the game.

But... you should use your common sense. It will tell you that SI can never truly tell each individual user that the game will work on the system they use.

You may also notice that to install the game, you must agree to several things on screen. I very much doubt you read them. They say that all rights are reserved, which effectively removes your right to a refund. Don't complain about something you agreed to.

To be honest I think we're going round in circles here on the point about the crash dumps.

As it stands one party says (and rightly imho) that the crash dumps isn't a simple case of a defective game. That there are many differen't PC configurations mean that it could be a combination of things that, despite the PC exceeding the specs, it can cause a problem. Not because the game is defective but that a conflict is occuring. It could be drivers, it could be a hardware fault, it could be a rogue process and so on. It could also be a software fault and as someone has stated above SI have not shyed away from admitting when the game has caused a crash dump or memory leak and have strived to fix it.

The other party flatly refuses to believe it's a problem with their PC because they've been told so, not only that but because their PC exceeds the specs. They also believe that SI have released a defective product and are only in it for money and ignore their consumers. Add to this they request that in future SI put on the box that even though their PC meets the requirements their PC may still crash.

From my POV this thread has reached a moment. I've pointed out already I'm in camp one but then again I realise that nothing that is said will change the mind of camp two. Game defects and crashes are an unfortunate norm in the games industry, I defy anyone to find a game these days that doesn't have a glitch, a bug or an issue in it. Patches try their best to resolve as many as they can but I don't think any game is ever bug free as there will always be a user who will do something 'unexpected' or a PC that has an odd configuration that causes a conflict.

We'd all love a bug free perfect software world but it is likely that it will ever happen. What we have to hope for is the company making the game is as engaging with their fanbase as SI are. You only need to look at the tactics overhaul FM2010 has had to know that SI take input from the community.

All comes back to what I said on a previous thread - SI just quickly slap together a game, ignore the bugs and simply rush it out in time to make a fortune off the back of it. They also don't give a damn about their customers, and I have conclusive proof of that.

wink

Okay... let me speak in small sentences.

Yes. SI put the specs on the back of the box. They say that computers up to standard will run the game.

But... you should use your common sense. It will tell you that SI can never truly tell each individual user that the game will work on the system they use.

You may also notice that to install the game, you must agree to several things on screen. I very much doubt you read them. They say that all rights are reserved, which effectively removes your right to a refund. Don't complain about something you agreed to.

Small sentences obviously suit you better, so plesae stick with them. Also, not even SI can deprive a consumer of their statutory rights. Therefore, the disclaimer you are referring to does not affect a consumer's statutory, and common law, rights. Also, you should realise that by the time you are loading the game, it's too late to return the product on your own analysis. You have a very slight knowledge of Consumer Law and issues having regard to your reasoning.

This argument seems to be going in circles. I'll get to the minimum specs thing in a bit, but first I should probably point out the reason I asked Tie Fighter some of the questions I did.

1. The point of asking why it matters seems to have been missed. Why do you care if someone else gets it before you? And you stated Sega treated independent retailers as second class. Do you have any proof?

2. The reason I asked how many testers would be enough is because I suspect you don't know how many they had in the first place. Without knowing that, asking for more testers is pointless. I happen to work in a field that involves usability testing and I can tell you that more users doesn't always result in more usable data. As the number of users (beta testers, in this case) increases, the amount of effort required to check and prioritise fixes increases along with it. A fairly small, dedicated team of testers will efficiently identify most crucial bugs reliably. So asking for more testers isn't as simple a fix as you think.

6. Not starting a game because the patch isn't out? Really? If you're going to take that extreme a viewpoint why not wait until the final patch before buying the game. Giving rough dates for patches is sensible, and pretty much industry standard unless a company is deliberately delaying a patch, and I suspect you don't want that.

Now, the main point that seems to be causing problems here: points 7 and 8. SI cannot possibly test every configuration of every possible hardware set-up on the market. They give basic guidelines and write their code to be compatible with whatever standards their chosen hardware is based off. However, hardware and software conflicts can cause unforseen problems. That's the pitfalls of PC software for you. If you want a stable, known configuration you need a console (and FM on a console is really not a good idea).

The EULA will probably contain a clause about hardware/software conflicts and saying you have no right to a refund, which is pretty standard practice.

Bottom line: in the real world software ships with bugs and crashes can happen even if you have the minimum specs to run a piece of software. I wish it wasn't the case too, but it's not unique to SI and the level of bugs/crashes is probably about what you would expect from a game this complex.

Also, remember that the number of posts about bugs and crashes isn't a hugely reliable. FM 2010 has sold literally millions of copies. Put that into perspective with the number of individuals registering valid complaints here.

For FM11 my suggestions are as follows : -

1.Allow retail outlets only to sell to ensure game is available to all and sundry on the same day; Don't even understand this but from what others have said about how it should be availble through steam, I think it should be on Steam.

2.Avail of select users of this forum in the testing process; Each year some members from here do beta test the game.

3.Release the beta version/demo 4-5 weeks before scheduled release to allow for greater feedback and to allow bugs to be dealt with as far as possible before final release; It would have to be a couple of months at least before the release date for them to actually be able to make any changes from demo feedback.

4.Improve the match engine and please ensure reported issues in FM2010 are not continued in FM11 - so, for example, corners, penalties, one on ones are improved. Agree, but there are hundreds of threads saying exactly this already, please try and be unique.

5.Don't add many new features. Add in "floodlights" for midweek games, maybe allow an option to use a skin which your club's stadium (or colours or something else) to be used as background. Add more variety to press conferences. Improve transfer markets - my suggestion would be for a manager to be able to offer a list of targets to his chairman who can do the negotiations. Allow some more flexibility for budgets if a "star signing" is imminent. Improve team talks - why can't the captain do them? Modify morale/motivation and confidence to be more in line with common sense. Simplify tactics so that Chelsea don't get beat at home to Wolves because the AI has figured out how Chelsea play (respect to Wolves). Bring more focus back on player quality. Basically, however, overall the focus should be to stick to what is there and improve it. Ok, I will respond to a few of your points here.

1) You can modify your budget, if you have enough extra wage budget to transfer to the transfer budget then the game will ask you if you want to do this when you try and sign a player (if you don't have enough transfer budget to complete the transfer).

2) Why can't the captain do team talks? Because in reality the captain doesn't do team talks (except maybe in very rare cases). The manager does them therefore you have to do them.

3) Morale, motivation and confidence do make sense in the game. Morale goes up when you win. Morale drops a bit if you lose to a much better side and drops a long way if you lose to a team you should have beaten. How does that not make sense?

4) Leeds versus Man Utd.

Everton versus Man City.

Portsmouth versus Liverpool.

Fulham versus Man City.

Wolves versus Tottenham.

Aston Villa versus Man Utd.

Just a few games this season where the real underdogs have won.

6.If people want to know when a patch will be released, tell them, using your own discretion as to who is/isn't trolling. Has it not occured to you that they may not know exactly when a patch will be finished? They probably have a rough deadline but I would bet they don't know exactly.

7.Clarify more clearly the necessary graphics/requirements at the point of sale; No developer can say exactly what graphics cards their game will work on as there are so many. They tell you as much as any other developer, that it requires a certain standard of card, but thats about all any developer will tell you.

8.Fix the crash defects; All games will crash on certain computers. They test on as wide a range as they can but there is no way they can test for every possible hardware or software conflict. Exactly the same as for all games.

9.Put your consumers first. They do.

That said, I can't see myself buying FM11 - the crash bug this year and the manner its been handled by SI has put me off. That may change if the FM11 forums are awash with relentless praise for the crash free and practically bug free FM11.

Have responded to every point and have come to the conclusion that you are a whiny sod.

All comes back to what I said on a previous thread - SI just quickly slap together a game, ignore the bugs and simply rush it out in time to make a fortune off the back of it. They also don't give a damn about their customers, and I have conclusive proof of that.

wink

Something makes me feel you may be being sarcastic

Small sentences obviously suit you better, so plesae stick with them. Also, not even SI can deprive a consumer of their statutory rights. Therefore, the disclaimer you are referring to does not affect a consumer's statutory, and common law, rights. Also, you should realise that by the time you are loading the game, it's too late to return the product on your own analysis. You have a very slight knowledge of Consumer Law and issues having regard to your reasoning.

No need to insult the fella.

Small sentences obviously suit you better, so plesae stick with them. Also, not even SI can deprive a consumer of their statutory rights. Therefore, the disclaimer you are referring to does not affect a consumer's statutory, and common law, rights. Also, you should realise that by the time you are loading the game, it's too late to return the product on your own analysis. You have a very slight knowledge of Consumer Law and issues having regard to your reasoning.

Seeing as you made a spelling error in that last post, I fail to see how small sentences suit me over you.

What you have said here is that no one is able to get a refund from their own analysis. This is indeed the case. Why then did you, in an earlier post, say that the player should be able to get a refund?

I still don't quite understand why you don't get that if two people buy the same game, have the same computer, but it only works for one of them, that the problem lies not with the game, but with the computer.

Something makes me feel you may be being sarcastic

What would give you that idea?

*shifty eyes*

All comes back to what I said on a previous thread - SI just quickly slap together a game, ignore the bugs and simply rush it out in time to make a fortune off the back of it. They also don't give a damn about their customers, and I have conclusive proof of that.

wink

where is that conclusive proof

I'll say again for the last time. If you guys cannot discuss/debate an issue without getting personal then this will be closed.