Two Season Game - The Future?

There has seemed to be a bit of a negative backlash over this years updates, some saying the game is getting ruined etc.

How about they release FM2012 with the mind set that the one after will not be released till 2014.

Obviously this would hit revenue for a year, but making the game a similar if not higher cost but offering a low cost transfer update at the end of a season etc.

It would allow the game to be finely tuned and not-rushed? Giving them 22 months to get the game perfect (if based on a September 2013 release).

Just an interesting thought, what's your thinking on this?

I have no idea why people think a bi-annual release would produce a better game.

Sure there would be more time to fix bugs/refine features but the extra time would also mean more new features + they would still need to produce & test the update for the season where there isn't a release.

There would still be bugs not fixed and there would still be bugs that were introduced late in the cycle as a result of fixing other bugs.

The whole point is rather mute though as SI have said many times that the current business plan is for an annual release.

There has seemed to be a bit of a negative backlash over this years updates, some saying the game is getting ruined etc.

Tbh people say that every game/patch. And after a year they suddenly come back to say how great the last game was.

I'd rather they continue as they are. If revenues are down, less money to make the game better. Also it's a progression. Ideas evolve and without fm13 how is fm14 going to be better then fm12? Good idea but makes no business sense. I have lots of pc games and this one of the most complex and least buggy.

Tbh people say that every game/patch. And after a year they suddenly come back to say how great the last game was.

Yeah, people just complain, it's human nature. I like this FM.

Well, it does feel a bit wrong how many errors make it into the first release, yet the nature of big pieces of software like this is that if you change something, it can have undesired effects elsewhere, it's never too simple. In some ways, it's almost down to luck that they get things right with each release. Either way we can hope they learn and get better with each release.

Not releasing a game and instead waiting for two years before the next release won't make FM any better. It would even make it worse.

Like it or not, any release is a massive betatest of the current version and from every release SI receive loads of input and feedback which they couldn't receive otherwise. Thus, missing out on one version does not mean you get the progress of two years when the next version is released. Instead, you necessarily get much less. After two years you would have a game riddled with bugs as there was no user base to find them.

Then of course there's the economic argument which is almost too obvious to be stated. SI need the income to pay all their employees. They just need it, so sacrificing one version is simply no option. No reason to blame them for that.

And if then you don't even have a real profit from that as a user, then it seems like a bad idea.

Here's the deal: Why don't you just leave SI doing what they are good at, let all those who want to buy the game of FM13 and you just skip it? This way, SI make their money, the game progresses as it should over two years and you save the money for the interim step. Everybody's happy this way, right?

It would allow the game to be finely tuned and not-rushed? Giving them 22 months to get the game perfect (if based on a September 2013 release).

Just an interesting thought, what's your thinking on this?

I think this is a great idea, they could release free versions of the game during that 22 months to allow everyone to test it and give their feedback so they know they are going in the right direction.

I think this is a great idea, they could release free versions of the game during that 22 months to allow everyone to test it and give their feedback so they know they are going in the right direction.

Yes, because that's how normal businesses work, they give WIP products away :s.

You ever heard of an open beta? anyway thats not the point, the point is they would not be releasing for 22 months so they can release development builds of the game for people to play test. It happens.

I think this is a great idea, they could release free versions of the game during that 22 months to allow everyone to test it and give their feedback so they know they are going in the right direction.

and everybody at SI could take a 100% pay cut for a year!

it is a business - a game each year makes more money than a game every other year - think about it

You ever heard of an open beta?.

For a non-mmo game? No.

and everybody at SI could take a 100% pay cut for a year!

Company makes more than enough money. Tops the charts every year, so play the violin strings elsewhere.

Company makes more than enough money. Tops the charts every year, so play the violin strings elsewhere.

You should have told us you have knowledge of their books, that changes everything! Wait, no it doesn't.

For a non-mmo game? No.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle#Open_and_closed_beta

"closed beta versions are released to a select group of individuals for a user test, while open betas are to a larger community group, sometimes to anyone interested. The testers report any bugs that they find, and sometimes suggest additional features they think should be available in the final version. Examples of a major public beta test are:

In September 2000 a boxed version of Apple Inc.'s Mac OS X Public Beta operating system was released.[2]

Microsoft's release of community technology previews (CTPs) for Windows Vista in January 2005.[3]"

You should have told us you have knowledge of their books, that changes everything! Wait, no it doesn't.

There was nothing to change, Kenco implied financial hardship if the game was'nt released for a year. That implication is incorrect IMHO.

So you're comparing os's with a game? Good going!

For a non-mmo game? No.

Can't even remember what you typed!

There was nothing to change, Kenco implied financial hardship if the game was'nt released for a year. That implication is incorrect IMHO.

based on what?

based on what?

Topping the charts every year, whether SEGA impose financial hardship on SI regardless is another matter.

Company makes more than enough money. Tops the charts every year, so play the violin strings elsewhere.

I presume from that statement you have access to and have viewed the annual accounts then?

It might top PC charts but from some of Mile's posts in the past sales are significantly lower than major console titles and given the amount of playtime an average user gets from it FM offers better value for money than most games on the market.

I presume from that statement you have access to and have viewed the annual accounts then?

err..yes, SEGA is publicly traded...it sold 690k boxed copies through retail of FM11 and FM11Handheld. Digital copies are not counted in that, they do not need to be declared on end year accounts.

err..yes, SEGA is publicly traded...it sold 690k boxed copies through retail of FM11 and FM11Handheld. Digital copies are not counted in that, they do not need to be declared on end year accounts.

Link?

1010

Link?

1010

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-02-21-sega-happy-with-fm-2011-saleshttp://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-02-21-sega-happy-with-fm-2011-sales

You as a fanboy will respond in 1 of 2 ways...

1) "So, still think it should be yearly buggy releases, if you don't like it don't buy it"

or

2) You will dispute the figures in eurogamer, a major gaming review site that both Marc Vaughan and Miles have accounts on.

You will tell me SI is two brothers in their bedroom valiantly making the game while eating jam sandwiches.

...or 3) disappear into another thread

Company makes more than enough money. Tops the charts every year, so play the violin strings elsewhere.

Even if the game "makes enough money", it is a chart topper every year as you say, so there is no way they will drop it one year and miss out on the profits. No matter how much a company makes one year, they always want more the next year.

Even if the game "makes enough money", it is a chart topper every year as you say, so there is no way they will drop it one year and miss out on the profits. No matter how much a company makes one year, they always want more the next year.

Fair enough, i just wanted to dispell the myth of poverty that was implied. You put your point well. None of what i said was with anger.

Fair enough, i just wanted to dispell the myth of poverty that was implied. You put your point well. None of what i said was with anger.

I haven't seen their accounts so can't comment on them directly, but even profitable companies would be in serious trouble if they lost that amount of income one year.

I haven't seen their accounts so can't comment on them directly, but even profitable companies would be in serious trouble if they lost that amount of income one year.

Alot better than a steady decline and a customer base looking else where....well just the steady decline bit

Alot better than a steady decline and a customer base looking else where....well just the steady decline bit

But a steady decline is easier to manage, you just make little cuts here and there and generally get by. Losing a great big chunk of income in one year can cripple a company beyond repair.

But a steady decline is easier to manage, you just make little cuts here and there and generally get by. Losing a great big chunk of income in one year can cripple a company beyond repair.

Lets not get into this again Kenco, they will not be crippled, they will return after a year without a release with a solid game with the core parts working( without the need of patches ). This is the time to do this when you have a virtual monopoly, no competitors.

Lets not get into this again Kenco, they will not be crippled, they will return after a year without a release with a solid game with the core parts working( without the need of patches ). This is the time to do this when you have a virtual monopoly, no competitors.

All I'm saying is that without knowing the inner workings of their accounts, there is no way I could say for sure whether they could afford to lose effectively one year's worth of income.

how bout you skip 2012 and buy fm 2013?

how bout you skip 2012 and buy fm 2013?

make no difference to the game i would be buying in FM13. It would be buggy and need patches. You read the OP.

Fair enough, i just wanted to dispell the myth of poverty that was implied. You put your point well. None of what i said was with anger.

Maybe not with anger but your post below is full of negativity towards SI/SEGA

Company makes more than enough money. Tops the charts every year, so play the violin strings elsewhere.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-02-21-sega-happy-with-fm-2011-saleshttp://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-02-21-sega-happy-with-fm-2011-sales

You as a fanboy will respond in 1 of 2 ways...

1) "So, still think it should be yearly buggy releases, if you don't like it don't buy it"

or

2) You will dispute the figures in eurogamer, a major gaming review site that both Marc Vaughan and Miles have accounts on.

You will tell me SI is two brothers in their bedroom valiantly making the game while eating jam sandwiches.

...or 3) disappear into another thread

No it was actually:

4) Left work & travelled home

But anyway thanks for the links which are of course news articles with sales figures. A little bit different to annual accounts which of course you haven't seen as you would need to purchase them from Companies House given that both Sega Europe and Sports Interactive are limited companies and not publicly traded. Although its worth mentioning that the SEGA brand covers a wide spectrum of companies around the world some of which are possibly public companies with shares being traded.

Just to put the sales figures into perspective though 690k of sales @ say an average price (UK) of £25 = £17.25m of which £3.13m is VAT leaving £14.12m of retail sales. I've never dealt with the software industry but from experience of other industries I would estimate SI maybe get a third of that (say £5m) with the rest of the supply chain sharing the rest. I could easily be wrong and they might get more or less than that its just an estimate. Out of their £5m turnover they then need to pay rent, corporation tax, utilities costs, equipment costs, wages and licensing costs along with many other expenses associated with producing a software title.

Certainly its not two guys sitting in their room producing it anymore but they are hardly a big player in the market either.

But anyway the loss of sales from making a bi-annual release was only a minor part of the discussion. The fact is people seem to presume that a bi-annual release = less buggy on release and this is simply not the case.

No anger towards Kenco as i realised the violin strings comment might have been harsh.

Your hypothesising about costs for an internal studio, that is what SI is BTW...INTERNAL, so no corporation tax for one and employees are all on SEGA payroll, SI does not exist as a legal entity anymore!!

Gone home on the train eh, Wheres the slipknot guy? He has not made an appearance in this tagteam match.

Read the OP.

No anger towards Kenco as i realised the violin strings comment might have been harsh.

Your hypothesising about costs for an internal studio, that is what SI is BTW...INTERNAL, so no corporation tax for one and employees are all on SEGA payroll, SI does not exist as a legal entity anymore!!

Gone home on the train eh, Wheres the slipknot guy? He has not made an appearance in this tagteam match.

Read the OP.

I'm not sure what the relationship is between SI & Sega but certainly from what I've seen SI are still a Ltd company in their own right and a separate legal entity with regards to employees/tax etc.

i wish people would shut up, this game isnt great but the people who make it will know this and will be trying to make it better for all of use, no matter what game it is there always will be bugs even in the good versions there has been a need for a patch

i wish people would shut up, this game isnt great but the people who make it will know this and will be trying to make it better for all of use, no matter what game it is there always will be bugs even in the good versions there has been a need for a patch

Did you even read the thread before posting this?

i think half of the problem is placebo bugs, people come on here and say theyve had such a thing happen and put it down to a bug, then when you see it happen you automaticly think its a bug, ive hardly seen any bugs but then i dont go looking for them

As has already been pointed out, there are a huge number of complaints every year. A lot of users experience no problems with the game, and are ultimately happy with the release. These people would undoubtedly be frustrated by a 2 year gap between releases.

Also, I agree with the points that losing the sole point of revenue from any company for a year unexpectedly would damage them. I very much doubt that the income from the game is divvied up as bonuses amongst the staff, but rather pays their wages. Cougar2010's list of probable expenditures is a good post. If you work for a company who you are aware of the accounts of - would that company survive in it's present state for 2 years if its income was cut by 90% in any given year?

There would be next to no income on a data update, if, has been suggested, they released such a thing as the FM community is abundant with users who produce their own transfer and ability updates.

Would you expect them to finish patching FM12 for a year to make that as good as possible, then design and test FM14 for a year? I'm a little unclear on that. The problem is that given a 2 year period, the team will try to put in even more than usual to justify the 2 year wait, or FM-ers will be on the forums complaining that they're lazy, and why have they taken two years to only incorporate two (flawlessly integrated) new features.

Well I believe champ man are doing bi annual release, due to the fact it's a terrible game. Let's watch them be ultimately burned by the terrible idea is released at the end of the year, and still watch as it will be a worse game then the year prior. Give me fm12 over waiting a year. Also all this haters, Or fanboy haters drives me nuts. People like it, people don't. Doesnt matter, in a forum all opinions count.

Still don't see what's wrong with just skipping to buy one release while letting all other enjoy the annual game...

Why restrict the other users and SI's revenues if you can get what you want this way?