Why is FM the only game where patches are scheduled???

ive never known any game,maybe apart from MMO's,where before the game is actually released there are scheduled times for forthcoming patches.

I know its always been this way for FM games but find it truly amazing! This blatantly shows that SI are aware that every game that gets released will always need fixing.i can understand scheduled patches regarding things like transfer windows database etc but when theres bugs,why do we have to wait until the scheduled time?

The vast majority of games gets patches if and when needed and released quickly,not to a timetable.

Why does there always have to be 3 patches only for an FM game.not including so called hotfix?

ive bought games recently where there has been 7 patches that have come out quite soon after day of release which i think should be expected if we have spent money on a product that isnt running as it should be.

ok,thats my rant over.for the record i truly love fm2011 but will have to wait for the " scheduled " patch before comitting myself to a long term save.

Because the patches are more akin to an MMO's. They are match engine improvements, small issue fixes and the like. If there aren't any problems, we can even get new features in a patch like we did a few years ago.

Anything that the average game would get an instant patch for would get a hotfix or an unplanned patch here. The scheduled ones are for data and match engine updates, as well as general polish.

All it shows is that issues currently existing (like say the transfer one) aren't considered critical errors, but just polish issues.

I would like SI to separate the technical buggy issues and get these patches out as quickly as possible. I think this is a good idea.

Technical issues should be hotfixes and the patches should be improvements/transfers in my opinion.

Hotfixes should be released as and when neccesary and patches at set times, everyone then knows where they stand.

Technical issues should be hotfixes and the patches should be improvements/transfers in my opinion.

Hotfixes should be released as and when neccesary and patches at set times, everyone then knows where they stand.

Yup,this is what i mean,exactly agree.hotfixes should be released when the bugs are fixed and not held back to make 1 big patch.

I can understand the 3rd patch being scheduled as its a data update for the January transfer window but I do agree that hotfixes shoud be released as and when they are needed.

I think they should release patches more often - savegame compatible or not. It's horrible to wait for February (???) whilst we have mentioned so many annoying bugs...

The problem with releasing patches more often is that it is potentially going to take longer to actually get some of the fixes. Delivering a patch is not a quick process, there will be a period of getting together a stable, finished build and then basically stopping development work while the thing is actually tested before release. With FM, this process is likely to be longer than something like Call of Duty (for example) because the game is much more complex (in terms of how parts of the game are interacting with other parts of the game). So basically the more often you release patches, the more time the developers spend effectively sitting around unable to actually work on fixes and ultimately the longer the fixes will take to be delivered to you.

And the other reason why patches are scheduled like this is simply to fit around the football season. It makes a sense to ship a patch/data-update in early february because of the transfer window closing.

Lots of studios schedule patches, they just keep their plans internal. It's basic project management, really; software development of applications of the scale of FM typically just isn't agile enough for any other approach.

Isn't it better for SI to give folks a schedule so you know what's coming, what's happening and when it's arriving.

No news is good news imo.

It always amazed me how SI can keep and expanding their business with this kind of marketing strategy.

It always amazed me how SI can keep and expanding their business with this kind of marketing strategy.

is that the supporting your community for free strategy is it?

In principle i agree with the idea of having hotfixes to fix bugs as quickly as possible. The thing i want to know is if its feasible though. The transfer bug, for example, might be harder to fix than most people anticipate so it might be better to wait for the next patch so that SI has enough time to fix it, test it and make sure its all working properly so we don't have ongoing problems until February.

but the point is,IF they fix the transfer bug and its been tested and it has no knock on effect,will they release it as hotfix...No!...you still have to wait for the next scheduled patch...ridiculous

but the point is,IF they fix the transfer bug and its been tested and it has no knock on effect,will they release it as hotfix...No!...you still have to wait for the next scheduled patch...ridiculous

why rush something out when you can wait and do a larger update on a scheduled date? If they do lots of small updates there is a greater chance that it could upset another part of the coding i would imagine, taking your time and making sure what you are changing is not affecting another part of the coding is far more important than rushing out hot fixes for something that isnt broken it just doesnt work exactly how they would like.

not sure about the transfer bug being not broken / gamebreaking but im not going into that,there already hundreds of similar threads about it.

i just honestly wish they would release patches when they fix something rather than wait for a specified date like other companies do.

why rush something out when you can wait and do a larger update on a scheduled date? If they do lots of small updates there is a greater chance that it could upset another part of the coding i would imagine, taking your time and making sure what you are changing is not affecting another part of the coding is far more important than rushing out hot fixes for something that isnt broken it just doesnt work exactly how they would like.

Exactly this my friend.

Imagine the uproar from this forum if they release a hot fix and inadvertlently break something else? Absolute bedlam.

I think chris22's transfer 'hotfix' shows how hard it is to not break other stuff, all credit to Chris, but in fixing happiness, tutoring has been broken. If SI did that most of you on here would react like they'd been round to give your missus a seeing to.

i did earlier say if they fixed a bug and it was tested to be working fine,why not release it rather than wait for the scheduled patch...and what are the chances anyway of when said patch arrives it breaks something else anyway and then we all await patch 3...the " final " patch.....and on it goes

You don't know anything about software development yet you're preaching about how they should do things. The only possible way we'll ever see small incremental updates is if everybody was forced in to using steam, otherwise you'll have to put up with the way it is.

i did earlier say if they fixed a bug and it was tested to be working fine,why not release it rather than wait for the scheduled patch...and what are the chances anyway of when said patch arrives it breaks something else anyway and then we all await patch 3...the " final " patch.....and on it goes

i would imagine the longer they have to test something the better it will be for us, remember there are thousands of variables that could be affected just by "fixing" the transfer market in the game. I highly doubt sorting this issue is as simple as sorting one line of code, therfore looking into this issue might open up 3 more issues and so on. Why not sort all of these issues together rather than releasing one that maybe means players attract more interest, this could then lead to teams making constant bids for your players, which in turn upsets them, which in turn upsets your team, which in turn leads to a million "OMG I HATE SI GAMES YOU HAVE RUINED MY LIFE" threads.

I would much rather wait until december when SI are happy it works better than it does at the moment.

Yup,this is what i mean,exactly agree.hotfixes should be released when the bugs are fixed and not held back to make 1 big patch.

Especially when you consider that patches often cause new breaks. Common knowledge in the industry.

But to be honest I think the main reason is for them, not us. The schedule patches like they schedule a release because they only work on patches for a finite time since they have to release next years version. Again, another flaw with the yearly release of sports game, too bad no one really cares.

Edit: ^^^ The longer they test something the better yes indeed... however do you really think they spend all the time between patches is spent testing -all- the changes? Of course not, they test of course but not to the level they need to.

There are far too many obvious bugs or errors of judgment for them to thoroughly be testing everything, why pay for full testing when everyone that buys the game is a free beta tester.

Especially when you consider that patches often cause new breaks. Common knowledge in the industry.

so surely its best to release as few patches as possible to avoid causing any new breaks, no?

Exactly this my friend.

Imagine the uproar from this forum if they release a hot fix and inadvertlently break something else? Absolute bedlam.

I think chris22's transfer 'hotfix' shows how hard it is to not break other stuff, all credit to Chris, but in fixing happiness, tutoring has been broken. If SI did that most of you on here would react like they'd been round to give your missus a seeing to.

exactly!! one little change like chris has done can affect something almost completely unrelated and thats just the obvious problems that "fix" causes, fair play to the guy for giving it a shot but it really shows how careful you have to be when editing the code in this game.

so surely its best to release as few patches as possible to avoid causing any new breaks, no?

Oh that's brilliant reasoning.. don't fix bugs to avoid potential bugs.

Two things that don't happen.. testing isn't thorough enough, maybe because the management (not the devs) like saving money and using -us- as their testers... and because of the schedules limited patches if a patch does break something else then the new bug stays regardless of how fast/easy the fix comes along.

Considering how big some of the bugs in FM11 are (transfer market completely failing) it's simply moronic to wait for those fixes and if they patched more then just 3 times and strictly scheduled then new bugs wouldn't be as big a concern because we'd know they'd fix them once they've found a fix.

Edit: As for your second comment about how 'disastrous' a hotfix could be, well if it wasn't us doing most of the testing...

I'm pretty certain something this big was probably spotted in testing. There's a massive difference between someone spotting a bug and someone fixing a bug. And again it's all well and good to say 'if they fix one bug they should release a patch' - have you seen some of the changelists they've released in the past? They may 'fix' one issue, but the chances of that having a knock-on elsewhere must be fairly high. Would be a crazy strategy to release patches like machine gun fire, even though I'd prefer a quicker fix, I'd rather have a 'proper' fix in due time than some half-arsed plaster trying to cover up a gaping wound.

i hope the majority of you saying u wish patches/hot fixes were released sooner know that these need testing aswell, and that the majority of the bugs caused were because they made a minor change before releasing the game and did not realise the amount of problems caused (mentioned on another thread) i llike things the way they are, set times for patches are good.

i hope the majority of you saying u wish patches/hot fixes were released sooner know that these need testing as well, and that the majority of the bugs caused were because they made a minor change before releasing the game and did not realise the amount of problems caused (mentioned on another thread) i like things the way they are, set times for patches are good.

Exactly carmi at last someone who releases what actually go's on

No they should -NOT- release a patch/hotfix for each individual issue in machine gun fashion. But only releasing 3 patches in general is lame...

the point is to release a patch when you have enough fixes for it to be worth the effort... considering 11.1.1 then they could have at least had a 11.1.2 out by now with a bunch of fixes. That is the point. Yes it's stupid to just release patches willy nilly. But it's equally stupid to wait on releasing a patch to a specified date just because they have a schedule for patches and will only release so many.

Last I'm going to say is a direct answer to the OP's title... Because the game is released every year, they can't follow standard game patch practices because they simply don't have the time since they have to do next years release, which in truth is basically just another patch. Just with a few new features and many new bugs. The whole yearly release concept is totally stupid, but like I've said... no one seems to care.

I dont understand why people are moaning about SI scheduling patches. Every year they schedule 3 patches. One on release day, one around Christmas and one around Feb/March.

The release day patch is basically just a data update for any changes after data lock. They also include some minor fixes in the time they have available between the demo and release (why not if they are releasing a data update anyway?)

December patch is the only intentional patch to fix any issues between demo/launch and up to that point. Im sure you'll agree most games need at least one patch after release to fix bugs.

Feb/March patch, again another data update which also includes any tweaks fixing knock on efects from patch two.

So in the three scheduled patches each year, two are essentially data updates. Only one is scheduled as a purely a 'fix' which is pretty reasonable to be honest. Obviously some unforseen circumstances mean they sometimes have to release a hotfix but thats life. Theres nothing wrong with the patching structure and how they are scheduled.

No they should -NOT- release a patch/hotfix for each individual issue in machine gun fashion. But only releasing 3 patches in general is lame...

the point is to release a patch when you have enough fixes for it to be worth the effort... considering 11.1.1 then they could have at least had a 11.1.2 out by now with a bunch of fixes. That is the point. Yes it's stupid to just release patches willy nilly. But it's equally stupid to wait on releasing a patch to a specified date just because they have a schedule for patches and will only release so many.

Last I'm going to say is a direct answer to the OP's title... Because the game is released every year, they can't follow standard game patch practices because they simply don't have the time since they have to do next years release, which in truth is basically just another patch. Just with a few new features and many new bugs. The whole yearly release concept is totally stupid, but like I've said... no one seems to care.

Its pretty wrong to say no one cares. If you'd met anyone from SI you would understand the passion they have for football and FM.

Also as for yearly releases they are an economic reality. I'm sure there are people at SI that would like them but they can't afford it and I'm sure Sega would not allow it.

It's not just a case of getting a fix done - it has to be thoroughly tested. I like the way a number of people moan that the game hasn't been tested well enough, then criticise us for not releasing patches quickly enough - when we're actually using this time to TEST any fixes! I'm afraid you just can't have it both ways.

Of course we care about the game, we do play the game ourselves - we want the best possible Football Manager experience as we can get. Yes ideally that'd come right out of the box, but with a game as complex as FM it's never going to be easy to remove every single issue that may appear. As has been said and documented elsewhere, there is a patch scheduled for December, as well as a data update after the January transfer window closes. We're sorry that some people would prefer it closer, but we'd rather have it done properly rather than rushed.

Theres a simple way around it isnt there? Release the game every two years with data update patches for the years inbetween. That way you would have two years to thoroughly make and test the game. Obviously it will never be bug free but some of the more glaring bugs must surely be found within a two year period instead of the few months you have between the finishing of coding and game release. I understand its probably the pressure from SEGA to release a yearly game so your kind of stuck in the middle. But its getting to a point now where yearly releases just arent good enough. Maybe customers should boycott the game and not buy until March each year and hit SEGA in the pockets. Im sure they would pull their finger out then and mayeb think about the quality of the product rather than releasing a sub-standard product each year.

Eh. They have them scheduled, much like any PS3/360/PC developer nowadays (no DS, PSP or Wii, as those don't allow patches). Only differeence is, they are being honest about it.

Notice how the schedule didn't prevent them from releasing a hotfix, anyway.

But serious, of anybody thinks the rest of studios which can patch don't have schedules, they are kidding themselves. This kind of complaints just push SI into being less community oriented, tbh.

Theres a simple way around it isnt there? Release the game every two years with data update patches for the years inbetween. That way you would have two years to thoroughly make and test the game. Obviously it will never be bug free but some of the more glaring bugs must surely be found within a two year period instead of the few months you have between the finishing of coding and game release. I understand its probably the pressure from SEGA to release a yearly game so your kind of stuck in the middle. But its getting to a point now where yearly releases just arent good enough. Maybe customers should boycott the game and not buy until March each year and hit SEGA in the pockets. Im sure they would pull their finger out then and mayeb think about the quality of the product rather than releasing a sub-standard product each year.

Exactly...

Nothing against Neil and the rest of the people that work for a living SI. But it's not just time testing. I've seen just as many new issues/bugs between 10.2, 10.3, and 11 as there were new features and fixes.

You want to get to the nitty gritty the guy that responded to my last post has it...

Also as for yearly releases they are an economic reality. I'm sure there are people at SI that would like them but they can't afford it and I'm sure Sega would not allow it.

Because of money.

The fact is the whole sports games being released every year was a standard that started about 20 years ago. LONG before the possibility of patching games on the fly was even considered. Customers for those games accepted it then and developed a whole separate way of production, marketing, and sales then any other genre of game. I still remember a rather large uproar by many Left 4 Dead fans when they announced the release of L4D2 1 year later, but you don't get that with sports game, it's just so grandfathered in. Does that mean it's ok? Not in my book but others have to problem with it, it seems.

But aside from the concept of buying a new game every year, if SI had more time to sort out bugs instead of being rushed to make the new features to make the next years version appear different from last years (and therefor a reason to purchase for fans) then the game would have fewer of the issues that exist. Plain and simple. But it's all about the money to Sega and SI's management. None of the SI staff that post would never say it, but Neil I'm 100% sure you've cussed out you bosses in your mind because you knew something they wanted was not best for the game you have passion for as a creator and player.

Exactly...

Nothing against Neil and the rest of the people that work for a living SI. But it's not just time testing. I've seen just as many new issues/bugs between 10.2, 10.3, and 11 as there were new features and fixes.

You want to get to the nitty gritty the guy that responded to my last post has it...

Because of money.

The fact is the whole sports games being released every year was a standard that started about 20 years ago. LONG before the possibility of patching games on the fly was even considered. Customers for those games accepted it then and developed a whole separate way of production, marketing, and sales then any other genre of game. I still remember a rather large uproar by many Left 4 Dead fans when they announced the release of L4D2 1 year later, but you don't get that with sports game, it's just so grandfathered in. Does that mean it's ok? Not in my book but others have to problem with it, it seems.

But aside from the concept of buying a new game every year, if SI had more time to sort out bugs instead of being rushed to make the new features to make the next years version appear different from last years (and therefor a reason to purchase for fans) then the game would have fewer of the issues that exist. Plain and simple. But it's all about the money to Sega and SI's management. None of the SI staff that post would never say it, but Neil I'm 100% sure you've cussed out you bosses in your mind because you knew something they wanted was not best for the game you have passion for as a creator and player.

I agree

To make the game the best it could be, would be to release a full game every 2 years or so .. or when the features were actually fully developed and tested. Then minor data updates (with perhaps some balancing and bug fixing, patching style) could be sold every year in the autumn. But that would mean a lot of money out of pocket for SI and SEGA. So that probably won't happen, as long as there s a market for yearly sports simulation releases.

So basically we, the consumers, are the only ones who can change the way this works ... by not buying the games except every two years, or only after patch .3 is sent out in the spring.

As for scheduling patches even before the game is released is pretty common nowadays. After the product goes gold and are sent off to be produced for discs and download, the development team keeps working on bugs and balancing. As an example, Paradox Interactive usually have a release day patch ready for the day it is released to fix the major bugs that still existed when it went gold. They also keep patching at least thrice for every title (some of the older ones even got 7 patches).

Much of the patches contain balancing of features. These are often not found until a large group of people have had their hands on it, and starts to complain about it on the forums. So if we want anything deeper than a shooter game, then always expect patches to be released (if the developer have any interest in their fanbase) to at least address glaring bugs and various balancing issues.

To make the game the best it could be, would be to release a full game every 2 years or so .. or when the features were actually fully developed and tested. Then minor data updates (with perhaps some balancing and bug fixing, patching style) could be sold every year in the autumn. But that would mean a lot of money out of pocket for SI and SEGA. So that probably won't happen, as long as there s a market for yearly sports simulation releases.

So basically we, the consumers, are the only ones who can change the way this works ... by not buying the games except every two years, or only after patch .3 is sent out in the spring.

Agreed... the funny part is if they actually tried releases every 2 years with a more complete bug free release they'd get more sales in the same amount of time then yearly releases because more people would be happy with the game.. the diehards are gonna buy it anyway, having a cleaner game is what would bring in new customers and hence more money.

But just like most companies... management are usually the people with the least common sense.

Edit: @Neil, look man not all of us are just empty moaners (not saying that's what you think). 2 years, 5, 10, 50, there are always going to be bugs or whatever. Other game genres go through that length of development and still come out with bugs, it's impossible not to have bugs. But they don't have as many bugs and logic errors as I see in FM. The point is that if you had extra year to sort things out... for example if you had an extra year put into the updated player interaction and agents then they'd likely be more of a feature and less of an annoyance while at the same time having fewer bugs in other areas as well.

Yeah we know it's about money and that not your fault, any devs fault, or the fault of testers... only one finger need be pointed and that's at SEGA. They could give you guys enough money to be in development for 2 years but they won't because they don't need to. Every other non-sport game that comes out under them has many years of development under them, Total War comes to mind as a long standing series (meaning there is a base they are working off) that has plenty of time to work on. Now FM has less core code difference between versions then something like Total War, but it's the principal.

I'm done though, said my piece and know its not likely to ever change because I know the players aren't ever going to boycott a game and that's that would make a producer sit up and take notice. Just explain the reality of the situation.

I'd frankly rather have a new game every year with a full set of new features and any issues ironed out in the following months, than wait twice as long for a larger (it won't be bug free...) update. If bugs are the concern, waiting for the final patch seems like the obvious course of action, though I'm in the camp that thinks the severity of these is largely overstated.

the thing you dont seem to get, is FM does not have an unlimited fan base, so for two years they make no money let have a huge layout for staff and everything else, they will not suddenly get twice as many customers buying the game because its only released every two years, they would just make less money, which in turn would mean we get a poorer game and the domino effect carries on.

the thing you dont seem to get, is FM does not have an unlimited fan base, so for two years they make no money let have a huge layout for staff and everything else, they will not suddenly get twice as many customers buying the game because its only released every two years, they would just make less money, which in turn would mean we get a poorer game and the domino effect carries on.

Yep you are right.. this is why companies like Bioware and Blizzard have such little money... they take their time and release things in in as good of shape as is possible within reason. Like I said myself, there are always going to be bugs, but the more time spent, especially on new features, the better they are and the larger the fan base grows because the people that aren't diehards are more interested in the quality of the game.

Don't go off spouting that's an unrealistic comparison either because both those companies started at the bottom too, they became what they were with quality not quantity (that being said I have to say I do dislike Blizzard for other reasons). Not to mention SEGA is major financial backing for FM and they could put more into the game to make it better if they wanted.

But Football is the biggest sport worldwide and the gaming industry is far surpassing other industries in revenue. So if FM has the backing and true quality there is no reason they couldn't have a massive fan base. But the design and development concepts used by SEGA are inhibiting that with a game that has issues it really shouldn't, SI just needs the extra time.

the thing you dont seem to get, is FM does not have an unlimited fan base, so for two years they make no money let have a huge layout for staff and everything else, they will not suddenly get twice as many customers buying the game because its only released every two years, they would just make less money, which in turn would mean we get a poorer game and the domino effect carries on.

Well why not charge more for the game? At the moment its generally around £25 which is pretty damn good compared to most other games. So if they released every 2 years and it was actually a decent product out of the box, im sure they could justify charging £40-45 for it every other year and also charge a small fee for data update patches. There are really no excuses. A bi-yearly release would allow more time for including bigger and better features and more time to test them and perfect them and polish the game. People will pay more for a better product.

I bet people dont really moan as much as they could now is because of the fact that the gae is relatively cheap compared to other games. If they was charging £40-45 for this game in its current state there would be an even bigger uproar and I bet even the most die hard fan would have had enough by now. Charging more for a bi-yearly up to scratch game with a small fee for update patches is the way forward. Maybe SEGA would lose a bit of money at first but you need to speculate to accumulate. SEGA have put themselves in this hole with unrealistic demands for a yearly game, its up to them to get themselves out of it!

Yep you are right.. this is why companies like Bioware and Blizzard have such little money... they take their time and release things in in as good of shape as is possible within reason. Like I said myself, there are always going to be bugs, but the more time spent, especially on new features, the better they are and the larger the fan base grows because the people that aren't diehards are more interested in the quality of the game.

Don't go off spouting that's an unrealistic comparison either because both those companies started at the bottom too, they became what they were with quality not quantity (that being said I have to say I do dislike Blizzard for other reasons). Not to mention SEGA is major financial backing for FM and they could put more into the game to make it better if they wanted.

But Football is the biggest sport worldwide and the gaming industry is far surpassing other industries in revenue. So if FM has the backing and true quality there is no reason they couldn't have a massive fan base. But the design and development concepts used by SEGA are inhibiting that with a game that has issues it really shouldn't, SI just needs the extra time.

Completely different areas of the market. Football manager will never be as popular as mainstream games due to the nature of the game, Blizzard make Warecraf, a game based online that is constantly updated different kettle of fish altogether. Bioware made Mass Effect didnt they? Again a completely different kind of game that appeals to far more people than FM. Out of my group of friends i could probably get 90% of them interested in a shooter game, yet only 5% will be interested in FM, that is the market they deal with. There will only be so many football fans and out of them there will only be so many interested in a managment simulation game, not everyone enjoys trawling through what is basically a massive football database with some added twists.

Well why not charge more for the game? At the moment its generally around £25 which is pretty damn good compared to most other games. So if they released every 2 years and it was actually a decent product out of the box, im sure they could justify charging £40-45 for it every other year and also charge a small fee for data update patches. There are really no excuses. A bi-yearly release would allow more time for including bigger and better features and more time to test them and perfect them and polish the game. People will pay more for a better product.

I bet people dont really moan as much as they could now is because of the fact that the gae is relatively cheap compared to other games. If they was charging £40-45 for this game in its current state there would be an even bigger uproar and I bet even the most die hard fan would have had enough by now. Charging more for a bi-yearly up to scratch game with a small fee for update patches is the way forward. Maybe SEGA would lose a bit of money at first but you need to speculate to accumulate. SEGA have put themselves in this hole with unrealistic demands for a yearly game, its up to them to get themselves out of it!

its been said before but does anyone know what the terms of the licenses are for this game, as mentioned the new F1 games will have to come out once a year to meet the requirements, who's to say something similar isnt in place here.

Charging twice as much for the game doesnt change anything, people would just moan you are paying twice as much for the game.

Oh that's brilliant reasoning.. don't fix bugs to avoid potential bugs.

thats not what i said at all, what i said was releasing fewer yet bigger updates means they can keep an eye on what changes within the game when they make changes to the code as they may have to change 5 other things because of 1 coding change.

its been said before but does anyone know what the terms of the licenses are for this game, as mentioned the new F1 games will have to come out once a year to meet the requirements, who's to say something similar isnt in place here.

Charging twice as much for the game doesnt change anything, people would just moan you are paying twice as much for the game.

Well seeing as there are already mega packs out the for players faces, kits, logos's and files to change the names of competitions to the real ones, why dont they scrap the licences and put the money into the game? If they was bothered about things like that, they wouldnt make it so easy to enable the real german team would they? There are always ways around things.

And why would people complain about paying more? They would be paying less! A sub-standard game each year at £25 each = £50. A better more polished game with better features every two years is £40-45. Even if they charged £45 and then charged £5 for an update patch inbetween thats still £50 in total.

Like I say, theres really no excuses, only the fact SEGA dont want to be a year out of pocket. Also you say about the fan base of FM. Maybe if they did spend two years developing the game, they might be able to get an up to scratch MLS and A-League and market it to the rapidly growing American and Australian soccer fans.

Completely different areas of the market. Football manager will never be as popular as mainstream games due to the nature of the game, Blizzard make Warecraf, a game based online that is constantly updated different kettle of fish altogether. Bioware made Mass Effect didnt they? Again a completely different kind of game that appeals to far more people than FM. Out of my group of friends i could probably get 90% of them interested in a shooter game, yet only 5% will be interested in FM, that is the market they deal with. There will only be so many football fans and out of them there will only be so many interested in a managment simulation game, not everyone enjoys trawling through what is basically a massive football database with some added twists.

Except Blizzard started with Warcraft, at the time a n unknown game in a barely budding genre and Bioware started mainly with RPG's, not the biggest genre either. On the other hand sporting games have always had a big draw, it's where EA got most of thei money in the old days and now they are top dogs. Not to mention management style games are still big, for instance Civilization is still a pretty big name and it's turn based management (really no different then FM at it's core) and Total War is very similar as well and it's a HUGE name in gaming circles.

Like I said, Football is massive and management/strategy genre isn't a small genre at all. The only think holding FM back from being bigger then it is is FM itself. SEGA and money are the reasons why FM can't reach it's potential though.