Most bugged version of the last few years

[StevoRobbo]

No not tried that but that would be a real pain in the ass..

It would be but surely its better than having tactics you have been working hard on getting ruined

[crouchaldinho]

I noticed that each game and patch release since last year has at least 1 AMAZING HUGE BUG... which is I think a PLANNED action by SI

Hilarious!

Obviously, SI like nothing better than to sabotage their games, make themselves look bad, and give themselves extra work for no reward!

[dave byrd]

Hilarious!

Obviously, SI like nothing better than to sabotage their games, make themselves look bad, and give themselves extra work for no reward!

Well surely the 'reward' would be installing faith in people to buy next years version.

[edgar555]

I noticed that each game and patch release since last year has at least 1 AMAZING HUGE BUG... which is I think a PLANNED action by SI

This is the most incredilbly foolish statement ever made on this forums. Complain all you like about bugs and issues (constructively preferably) but to say this just makes you look like a complete and utter tool and someone who is not worth listening to. Welcome to the ignore list.

[Sussex Hammer]

I noticed this team instructions thing last night and it is annoying, however, and I only use classic so don't know if it works with the creator. Yes your Team Instrictions stay the same if you switch tactics whilst looking at the team instructions, however I don't thionk it changes you tactic. If you revert back to the team formation screen and reload your tactic it should show your proper instructions. So at the start of each match I just go to Formation and choose the tactic I want to play and in game if I want to switch again I only switch at the formation screen. Hope that makes sense. Haviing to delete current, current, current though is a tad barmy!!

[IMT]

Ideally obviously we'd prefer to be able to say "what are you on about, there's never been any bugs in ANY of our games" but sadly we know that isn't the case. We always try and make it as playable as possible out of the box, but I do have to say, I've worked and tested on all of those FM's listed above (yes it's all my fault) and FM11 was considerably less buggy (certainly in terms of numbers and I'd say severity) than some of those shown, which would most certainly show people do have relatively short memories when it comes to these types of things.

Not sure I agree with this, maybe the others had more in total, but I would say 11 has the most major bugs.

My reasoning for voting for 11 over 8, 9 or 10 is simple, it's the only one I have stopped playing until the final patch is released, the others I could get on with, but 11 is just horrible at the moment.

[Tyler42]

Not sure I agree with this, maybe the others had more in total, but I would say 11 has the most major bugs.

My reasoning for voting for 11 over 8, 9 or 10 is simple, it's the only one I have stopped playing until the final patch is released, the others I could get on with, but 11 is just horrible at the moment.

This is the same for me, I'm back at 10.3, ive never gone back to an old game before since FM2005, but this is my first time ever that I'm not going to school so I have more time to play FM, so that might be why I get so annoyed with the bugs.

[kingjericho]

4 patches before reaching january speaks for itself

[SCIAG]

but I can't see any benefit whatsoever for us including "1 AMAZING HUGE BUG" in any version of our game.

It's something extra to put on the back of the box!

[daylight]

It's something extra to put on the back of the box!

Instead of that why not put "not fully tested yet" on the box

Sorry but that was to easy,could not resist.

[Neil Brock]

4 patches before reaching january speaks for itself

I'd be wary about saying that as a bad thing - I know ideally there should be NO patches, but what would you prefer, patches to fix issues or us waiting as we said originally just for the December patch and the January update?

[daylight]

I'd be wary about saying that as a bad thing - I know ideally there should be NO patches, but what would you prefer, patches to fix issues or us waiting as we said originally just for the December patch and the January update?

You guys are making it to easy tonight...How about you do not mention patch's and the game is delayed/released until it is ready.

Why does there need to be a November patch or a December patch?...Sorry I forgot about the Christmas market.My bed.

[daylight]

Sorry I had to post that but Neil you made it sound like you were doing us a favour there.....Don't forget we are the guys buying the game and basically beta testing it for you to add patch's....so in your own words "be wary".

[Tubey84]

Pretty much agree with this, although I would put FM09 first.

That said, I remember FM08 was pretty bad upon release. I actually went back to FM07 until the patch came out, it was that poor.

FM09 was just an all round horror show for me.

FM11 seems to be slightly worse than normal, to be quite honest, but nothing compared to the issues with FM09, in my opinion.

By far the best, was FM10. Beautiful out of the box and perfectly playable. SI surpassed all expectations with that release.

If SI could get it anywhere near FM10 each time, we'd all be delighted. That should be the aim!

I agree that FM10 had very minor problems and is the best of the four - although it had a few ME problems until 10.3. However, FM11 is definitely the most bug-ridden overall of any FM thus far.

FM09 was.... well, even in March that game was a calamity and comfortably the worst FM overall even after the patches - I remember fuming at the authors of TT&F in that they tried to actually justify the match engine logically when it was plain crap - but even then it didn't have the general gameplay killing bugs that FM11 has, namely the transfer bug and the other craptastic errors that are still abound.

FM08 was hit and miss - before the first patch it was literally unplayable but recovered quickly. FM11 has been worse because even after two patches it's still woefully bugged, whilst FM08 was effectively "repaired" by December.

So FM11 > FM09 > FM08 > FM10 overall for me. If you're talking strictly "out of the box", FM08 > FM11 > FM09 > FM10.

The only saving grace for FM11 so far is that the Match Engine is showing massive promise for 11.3.

[Tubey84]

Fair enough if we charged money for patches, but I can't see any benefit whatsoever for us including "1 AMAZING HUGE BUG" in any version of our game.

Just to pick up on this, the reason the patch system feels like a ripoff (and basically a pandering to Sega and a pre-Christmas sales-fest) is that you'll only have a "complete" version of the game in March. That means that as consumers we only have seven months of a proper game, then SI release the next FM and, like idiots, we all go out and buy that straight away.

If the release date was on a 15 month cycle and it was released when completed, we'd be getting 12 months or so of a "proper" FM - without the frustration of a bugged product for months on end, damaging SI's reputation just to satisfy Segas bank balance.

[celebritykiller]

Have to go with this one, but I'm not complaining as I was there for CM4... didn't that need about 6/7 patches (felt like it anyway)

[Bicycle]

I'd be wary about saying that as a bad thing - I know ideally there should be NO patches, but what would you prefer, patches to fix issues or us waiting as we said originally just for the December patch and the January update?

I'd prefer you actually tested patches thoroughly enough (read; more than ten minutes) that the patches themselves don't need to be patched.

[Tubey84]

Have to go with this one, but I'm not complaining as I was there for CM4... didn't that need about 6/7 patches (felt like it anyway)

Urgh.. CM4. I had a top end PC that should have ran that with ease, but it was snails pace. ^^

[IMT]

Just to pick up on this, the reason the patch system feels like a ripoff (and basically a pandering to Sega and a pre-Christmas sales-fest) is that you'll only have a "complete" version of the game in March. That means that as consumers we only have seven months of a proper game, then SI release the next FM and, like idiots, we all go out and buy that straight away.

If the release date was on a 15 month cycle and it was released when completed, we'd be getting 12 months or so of a "proper" FM - without the frustration of a bugged product for months on end, damaging SI's reputation just to satisfy Segas bank balance.

Totally agree with this, for FM12, I don't want to see one new feature (of course there will be as new features sell), but for them to totally sort out this version and release it as FM12, basically if there is any new features, then I won't be buying it as I know we will end up the same cycle once again, with all the new features being bug ridden, and whilst they are spending their time on the new features totally ignoring basics, which is what has happening with 11.

[ToonArmy-Tom]

Rose tinted glasses I think. If I recall correctly about 50% of people couldn't play FM09 out of the box because of problems with vertification and Steam... and followed it up with a game ending crash at random points. Besides... I don't think there's been ANY game released in the last 4-5 years which hasn't needed serious patching - yes, I'm looking at you F1 2010 ¬_¬

[Kain]

Its a bit hard for me to judge, as iirc, all of these have had a patch at least within a day or two of being released and therefore I won't have played it "straight out of the box". I've voted FM11 purely because its the only one I haven't bought after trying the demo (though FM08 is the only one I've sold after buying and gone back to the previous version).

[Cougar2010]

Just to pick up on this, the reason the patch system feels like a ripoff (and basically a pandering to Sega and a pre-Christmas sales-fest) is that you'll only have a "complete" version of the game in March. That means that as consumers we only have seven months of a proper game, then SI release the next FM and, like idiots, we all go out and buy that straight away.

If the release date was on a 15 month cycle and it was released when completed, we'd be getting 12 months or so of a "proper" FM - without the frustration of a bugged product for months on end, damaging SI's reputation just to satisfy Segas bank balance.

I surprised someone like you says this Tubey.

Extending the development cycle will not in any way get rid of all the bugs - it will simply make the community wait three months longer before the same bugs/arguments occur.

Personally I've played the game for virtually 20 years and I've learned. I still buy on release to support SI but I don't expect to play straight away and don't normally start a career until patch 2 at the earliest. Sure I pay up front but I trust SI will provide a very playable game by patch 2/3 which will give me superb value for money overall.

[dave byrd]

I don't know if FM11 is the most bugged but the bugs in this version have stopped me from playing and are more annoying than in any other from the past few years. In 11.2.1 i simply cannot play due to the screwed up tactic situation:

*Any change i make to one of my tactics gets applied to all my tactics

*Set piece instructions keep resetting themselves

*Individual player instructions keep resetting.

How can i play when the fundamental basics such as the game following your tatical instructions do not even work?

[Fabio MVP]

FM11 is the least bugged out of the box of those four IMO.

FM08<FM10<<<<FM09<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<FM11 out the box for me. 10.2 would be just short of FM11 out the box.

10.2 was awful.

[BaYa]

hey Fabio, are you happy with the last patch dear fanboy ?

next time, before replying on my posts, just wait a couple of days, because you need more time than me to see the new HUGE bugs...

greetz

[Jason Valler]

this latest patch has to be the worst.

I am offered a new contract that is below the minimum so i cant negotiate unless i ask for a pay rise, i am trying to sign new players who want a release clause that is less or the same that i am buying them for.

Utter garbage.

[Bongo-Bongo]

'09 was by far the most bugged out of box, or at least severley bugged imo. '08 wasn't much better though. When it comes to patches though, I am finding 11.2 to be one of the worst versions yet.

[GillsMan]

Yeah, if we can't have a sensible discussion without labelling each other fanboys then I'll just shut this thread. You can tell it's the school holidays right about now.

[robertcornell68]

I don't know if FM11 is the most bugged but the bugs in this version have stopped me from playing and are more annoying than in any other from the past few years. In 11.2.1 i simply cannot play due to the screwed up tactic situation:

*Any change i make to one of my tactics gets applied to all my tactics

*Set piece instructions keep resetting themselves

*Individual player instructions keep resetting.

How can i play when the fundamental basics such as the game following your tatical instructions do not even work?

Yeah, I'm a tactical obsessive, so that pretty much kicks me in my core game experience.

I only got 2006, 2010 & 2011 but some of the bugs in 2011 seem rather careless.

[Da_Funk]

FM2010: I think you all forgot the "memory leak allocation" that made the game unplayable (literally)

[dave byrd]

I'm really hoping for a hotfix before Christmans as was really looking forward to getting into a save over the holidays.

In future though i will only pick up FM after the final patch.

[roykela]

FM2010: I think you all forgot the "memory leak allocation" that made the game unplayable (literally)

I certainly have not forgot it.

I still voted for FM11 as i still find FM10 more enjoyable than, FM11.

I managed to figure out approximately when FM10 would crash, but to be safe i saved the game after every match.

Then it was just reloading it and keep on playing it.

In FM11 i find there are more small problems that adds up to a big lump. Where, in FM10, it was basically just one big problem that i learned to live with.

But the crashes i experienced in FM10 will probably be never forgotten

[Da_Funk]

One bug like that has more weight than all those in FM11.

One thing is a distorted gameplay, another is the fact that you past more time while saving or rebooting your pc.

FM10.

[Sheffield Sunday]

FM11 has a PA of 4.5 to 5 stars. However it's CA (due to the number of annoying bugs) is 2.5 to 3 stars depending on the 'patience' stat of the user.

[roykela]

One bug like that has more weight than all those in FM11.

One thing is a distorted gameplay, another is the fact that you past more time while saving or rebooting your pc.

FM10.

For me, comparing now and then, it doesn't.

And i certainly had more gaming time than saving and restarting the game.

As for having to reboot the pc because of it, i can't really comment on. But if i had that problem i would most likely agree.

Managed to stretch to the year 2060, or somewhere around there, on FM10 for the very first time. And i'll probably do something about the same with FM11 eventually.

Despite the crashes i found FM10 the best game since CM 01/02. But that, of course, is a personal experience and opinion

[robertcornell68]

FM11 has a PA of 4.5 to 5 stars. However it's CA (due to the number of annoying bugs) is 2.5 to 3 stars depending on the 'patience' stat of the user.

Nicely put.

[Tubey84]

FM11 has a PA of 4.5 to 5 stars. However it's CA (due to the number of annoying bugs) is 2.5 to 3 stars depending on the 'patience' stat of the user.

lol spot on.

I surprised someone like you says this Tubey.

Extending the development cycle will not in any way get rid of all the bugs - it will simply make the community wait three months longer before the same bugs/arguments occur.

Personally I've played the game for virtually 20 years and I've learned. I still buy on release to support SI but I don't expect to play straight away and don't normally start a career until patch 2 at the earliest. Sure I pay up front but I trust SI will provide a very playable game by patch 2/3 which will give me superb value for money overall.

Probably. However, I think they'd limit the "game breakers" that have generally plagued the release versions of the last four FM's by extending the release date, locking the code 12 months into development, releasing a demo, gathering feedback from the demo for a month, fix the bugs, update the data, lock the code, release a second demo, feedback, update, lock, release the game.

Basically, if SI are going to be using the community as Beta testers, do so via the medium of a demo rather than the backdoor method of milking a pre-Christmas cash cow release date.

It won't happen, of course, because quite rightly some people will support SI and buy the game on release no matter what. Fair enough, but the problem with this strategy is that an awful lot of people will cotton on to FM being an inferior product until the third patch, and as such they'll simply delay buying the game til then, and pick it up from the bargain bins for £10-15.

So what I'm saying is that whilst SI probably think they're making money releasing pre-Christmas, in the long run they're taking massive hits to their reputation as a games company and they'll lose money on future releases. I've bought every single FM off the shelf on or near the release date, yet I've finally been screwed around so much by FM11 that I certainly won't be buying FM12 til March 2012.

If I'm doing this, I'm pretty sure others will be too! The patch strategy needs reviewing urgently.

'09 was by far the most bugged out of box, or at least severley bugged imo. '08 wasn't much better though. When it comes to patches though, I am finding 11.2 to be one of the worst versions yet.

Agree. Actually FM09 was pure garbage all round.

I might be getting the versions mixed up, but was FM09 the one were the activation code was unreadable on the back of the manual, or was that FM08? Either way, that was a colossal screw up ^^

[dave byrd]

Some good points. As i've stated before i will NEVER buy FM again until after the third patch.

[wally13]

lol spot on.

Probably. However, I think they'd limit the "game breakers" that have generally plagued the release versions of the last four FM's by extending the release date, locking the code 12 months into development, releasing a demo, gathering feedback from the demo for a month, fix the bugs, update the data, lock the code, release a second demo, feedback, update, lock, release the game.

Basically, if SI are going to be using the community as Beta testers, do so via the medium of a demo rather than the backdoor method of milking a pre-Christmas cash cow release date.

It won't happen, of course, because quite rightly some people will support SI and buy the game on release no matter what. Fair enough, but the problem with this strategy is that an awful lot of people will cotton on to FM being an inferior product until the third patch, and as such they'll simply delay buying the game til then, and pick it up from the bargain bins for £10-15.

So what I'm saying is that whilst SI probably think they're making money releasing pre-Christmas, in the long run they're taking massive hits to their reputation as a games company and they'll lose money on future releases. I've bought every single FM off the shelf on or near the release date, yet I've finally been screwed around so much by FM11 that I certainly won't be buying FM12 til March 2012.

If I'm doing this, I'm pretty sure others will be too! The patch strategy needs reviewing urgently.

Agree. Actually FM09 was pure garbage all round.

I might be getting the versions mixed up, but was FM09 the one were the activation code was unreadable on the back of the manual, or was that FM08? Either way, that was a colossal screw up ^^

The thing is though regardless of when the games comes out or when patches come out that there will always be complaint threads no matter if the complaints are justified or not

[SmurfDude]

lol spot on.

Probably. However, I think they'd limit the "game breakers" that have generally plagued the release versions of the last four FM's by extending the release date, locking the code 12 months into development, releasing a demo, gathering feedback from the demo for a month, fix the bugs, update the data, lock the code, release a second demo, feedback, update, lock, release the game.

Basically, if SI are going to be using the community as Beta testers, do so via the medium of a demo rather than the backdoor method of milking a pre-Christmas cash cow release date.

It won't happen, of course, because quite rightly some people will support SI and buy the game on release no matter what. Fair enough, but the problem with this strategy is that an awful lot of people will cotton on to FM being an inferior product until the third patch, and as such they'll simply delay buying the game til then, and pick it up from the bargain bins for £10-15.

So what I'm saying is that whilst SI probably think they're making money releasing pre-Christmas, in the long run they're taking massive hits to their reputation as a games company and they'll lose money on future releases. I've bought every single FM off the shelf on or near the release date, yet I've finally been screwed around so much by FM11 that I certainly won't be buying FM12 til March 2012.

If I'm doing this, I'm pretty sure others will be too! The patch strategy needs reviewing urgently.

Agree. Actually FM09 was pure garbage all round.

I might be getting the versions mixed up, but was FM09 the one were the activation code was unreadable on the back of the manual, or was that FM08? Either way, that was a colossal screw up ^^

FM08 and FM09 were in a much worse state than FM11, that's fact. Yet FM still sells enough to reach the top of the charts, so obviously there are plenty of people happy enough to keep buying it. But please, feel free to not buy it again, I'm sure none of us will miss your depressing negativity

[dave byrd]

The thing is though regardless of when the games comes out or when patches come out that there will always be complaint threads no matter if the complaints are justified or not

Maybe but compare the complaints after the release compared to the complaints after patch 3.. Much less and issues much more minor in comparison.

[Tubey84]

The thing is though regardless of when the games comes out or when patches come out that there will always be complaint threads no matter if the complaints are justified or not

Actually, if anyone who has owned an FM in the past buys the next one on release date, then comes on these forums to moan about it, they deserve to be laughed at quite frankly.

There should be a standard stock response prepared - "If you bought the game within three months of the release date, having previously bought FM08, FM09, FM10 or FM11, and didn't expect bugs, then you deserve every single bug you get."

I can understand the people who simply love SI going out and buying FM12 ASAP, as my trust in the series until this year was so complete that I fell into the category. But I think the sensible people who do this will expect the bugs and just get on with it.

[wally13]

Maybe but compare the complaints after the release compared to the complaints after patch 3.. Much less and issues much more minor in comparison.

As smurf says above other versions for me and others personally were in worse states 08 for me was bad. and as for less complaints after patch 3 well that's obvious in a way its always been same

all people can do in future in not buy the game at all or just like you say wait till patch 3 there's no point get wound up by it

[Tubey84]

FM08 and FM09 were in a much worse state than FM11, that's fact. Yet FM still sells enough to reach the top of the charts, so obviously there are plenty of people happy enough to keep buying it. But please, feel free to not buy it again, I'm sure none of us will miss your depressing negativity

So FM11 > FM09 > FM08 > FM10 overall for me. If you're talking strictly "out of the box", FM08 > FM11 > FM09 > FM10.

Weird that - I basically agree with you!

The fact FM08 and FM09 were garbage out of the box isn't a bloody defence mate! That simply means the three patch strategy has been screwing people over for nigh on four years!

I've just gave a very reasoned and detailed post about why the three patch strategy is hurting SI. The fact there's a thread wondering which of the four titles that have ran exclusively on a three patch principle is the worst, not the best, speaks volumes.

[wally13]

Weird that - I basically agree with you!

The fact FM08 and FM09 were garbage out of the box isn't a bloody defence mate! That simply means the three patch strategy has been screwing people over for nigh on four years!

I've just gave a very reasoned and detailed post about why the three patch strategy is hurting SI. The fact there's a thread wondering which of the four titles that have ran exclusively on a three patch principle is the worst, not the best, speaks volumes.

I think its slightly unfair having ago that Si make 3 patches i'd rather have 3 then none, games as big and complex as fm full of little codes everywhere on the game are always going to need patches

[Tubey84]

I think its slightly unfair having ago that Si make 3 patches i'd rather have 3 then none, games as big and complex as fm full of little codes everywhere on the game are always going to need patches

I'm not against patches, I'm against the policy of releasing a game that is dependent on patches to "finish" the game.

Basically, SI are releasing a half-finished game deliberately, then relying on a three patch system following feedback on bugs from the community to complete it rather than complimenting it. (I best qualify this sentence by saying "in my opinion" but given it's happened every single release since FM08 and arguably earlier I think it's as close to a factual opinion as you can get).

I have to stress, I will never expect any PC title to be bug free upon release, but I think the aim should be to get as close to it as possible rather than rely on subsequent patching after the consumer has bought the knowingly bugged retail product, because SI take repeated hits to their reputation by allowing a shoddy product to be purchased by the consumer on release day.

[wally13]

I'm not against patches, I'm against the policy of releasing a game that is dependent on patches to "finish" the game.

Basically, SI are releasing a half-finished game deliberately, then relying on a three patch system following feedback on bugs from the community to complete it rather than complimenting it. (I best qualify this sentence by saying "in my opinion" but given it's happened every single release since FM08 and arguably earlier I think it's as close to a factual opinion as you can get).

I have to stress, I will never expect any PC title to be bug free upon release, but I think the aim should be to get as close to it as possible rather than rely on subsequent patching after the consumer has bought the knowingly bugged retail product, because SI take repeated hits to their reputation by allowing a shoddy product to be purchased by the consumer on release day.

Its not done deliberately though is it in the sense that i think you think its just the timeline of things, its obviously not easy to make a football manager sim game as im sure the cm developers will justify the last cm was 2 years in making was't it ? and look how that ended and fifa managers about as realistic as Jordon and they dont even release patches do they ?

[Tubey84]

Its not done deliberately though is it in the sense that i think you think its just the timeline of things, its obviously not easy to make a football manager sim game as im sure the cm developers will justify the last cm was 2 years in making was't it ? and look how that ended and fifa managers about as realistic as Jordon and they dont even release patches do they ?

Here's what happens with FM:

1. The demo is released to the public a week or two before release, for no practical reason other than as a taster for the addicts and so that consumers can check whether the product works on their system.

2. The game is released religiously on a 12 month cycle, or less, with a bare minimum release date of November so as to cash in on Christmas.

3. The developers notice major bugs within the locked demo code during the two weeks between demo release and retail release, and prepare a patch to fix the locked code when retail release lands. This is the first patch.

4. The game is released with only two weeks of developer testing on the final code.

5. The game is badly bug-strewn as the code hasn't been Beta-tested to any large-scale degree, an opportunity that could be addressed by an extended demo release. The second patch is released in December, which addresses the flood of feedback from the forum. However, there's no time to fully test the newly altered code, so once more the developers only have around two weeks to test the locked code for new errors.

6. The community notice the errors from the first patch are fixed, but the second patch has created a load of other bugs (like the "Poland Bug" in 11.2). Urgent hotfix aside, these are ignored and will be addressed in February/March, after the community "Beta test" the second patch for two months.

7. The influx of bug reports, combined with the two to three month extended testing period for the dev team between December and March, allow the game code to be fine tuned to eradicate final bugs and the third patch basically completes the game.

Now, here's were improvements can be made to avoid a five month plus wait between retail release and a completed game:

A. Have a demo release six weeks in advance of retail instead of two, allowing feedback and dev testing time on a final code. Lock the code again two weeks before release, and fix it. This will mean that the first patch will be the quality of the second patch as we stand now.

B. Drastically extend the Beta tester program, or intelligently select people from the forums to test the game who seem committed to improving FM rather than doing it to simply get a quick early try of the new title.

There's probably other options too, but those two alone would result in a more stable release game and more respect for SI (or, more importantly, fewer people "bargain binning" the title in March).

I understand that for A to work the game would have to be on a 13 month release schedule rather than 12 to accomodate the extra month demo time, but it'd be worth it in the long run.

[pb1uk]

Probably is this one, but with so many new features it's bound to have some teething problems.

It may have a few issues but it's still a great game!

[Sheffield Sunday]

Here's what happens with FM:

Now, here's were improvements can be made to avoid a five month plus wait between retail release and a completed game:

There's probably other options too, but those two alone would result in a more stable release game and more respect for SI (or, more importantly, fewer people "bargain binning" the title in March).

I understand that for A to work the game would have to be on a 13 month release schedule rather than 12 to accomodate the extra month demo time, but it'd be worth it in the long run.

Good post. I think you'd also have to extend the demo beyond 6 months (possibly to a full season) to test end season processes like regens, dynamic reputation, and the like.