Why SI has a stubbornness about releasing a new patch ( 11.4 ) ?

[Guest aaron70]

Charlo...

Fair enough mate.

I guess we just have different views.

I would rather just see refinement with one or two new features that work very well each year TBH.

But that is what opinions are all about

[milnerpoint]

For those who love to use the car analogy, if you owned a car, but we unhappy with the way the radio and heating system worked, would you be happy to buy a new car a year later, exactly the same but with a more polished radio and heating system?

[BiggusD]

Frankly I don't see the problems with 11.3 which everyone keeps going on about. There is apparently a bug with player histories which I have seen once and thats it for me basically. The game runs well even with all nations loaded and quite far into the game. 11.3 is fine.

Also I'd rather they started work on FM12 rather than spending all thier time trying to fix small bugs which some people really over react about. If they did that they'd never release new games.

Who implied that the bugs everyone are speaking about are regarding the game "running well"? That has nothing to do with anything! The issues people have with this game is that the ME is highly unbalanced! Both the tactical instructions and the team talks are way too sensitive, and the pressure handling and professionality of the players are seriously flawed!

Imagine you're in the wardrobe of Manchester United, at home vs Noobchester Town in the league cup. You tell them "guys, I expect of you that you win this. It would be a major disaster if we manage to not beat these amateurs with at least 5 goals. I want you to go out there and show them how football is played by professionals!"

Logical, right? A bunch of highly professional athletes with a killer winner instinct are sitting in front of you, thinking that the win will be easy and effortless - and then the manager tells them that he expects that they perform! Like if those plumbers and postmen could actually stand a chance - "d*** I'll show him!"

The result: four of the players starts crying. They feel really sorry for themselves, how could he! The b***ard! Three players go like "oooh yeeeeah, aaaargggh, SPAAARTAAAAAAAA!!!!!!", mouths foaming, and the rest curl up into a fetal position moaning softly - and needs to be dragged onto the field, being in a catatonic state of fear.

Once on the field, the emo kids play badly, the three spartans get a red card each after three minutes, and the rest are still catatonic, watching the other team play the game of their lives - not moving, eyes closed.

Still happy about FM2011.3?

[Guest aaron70]

Milner...no...Bedsides the fact that I don't "love" to use the car analogy, I would expect the car company would replace the parts (patch) when they were improved.

If I loved the car (game) and they fixed these things I may well buy a new model a couple of years later

Don't get yourself bogged down in the car analogy. Focus on what you would prefer with the game. A game that works as the developer wishes with one or two new features or a game littered with new features that has not had the old ones sorted out and the new ones aren't really working as hoped.

There is no right or wrong answer. I just would prefer the first option. Others may prefer the second...so be it. I guess SI make much more money from option 2.

[Nik_Dut]

TBH, if any series of FM works perfectly (says FM12) then buying FM13 will not be necessary

[Neil Brock]

Next person to use another bloody car analogy gets infracted if I see it.

[milnerpoint]

your two options are either basically buy a game that doesnt work properly, or agree with you and SI change their strategy in terms of releases.

I dont really see the big problem with most of the features, most of them work well, a few dont quite but on the most part they all work.

[milnerpoint]

Next person to use another bloody car analogy gets infracted if I see it.

but surely you see that buying a copy of FM is exactly the same as buying a new car.............

[Guest aaron70]

Milner...I take it you are very literal. I could have exchanged car for PC game and the result would have been the same

As for "the most part they work well"....sure.....I agree for the most part

[wally13]

Next person to use another bloody car analogy gets infracted if I see it.

1 Of my favourites that also the builder 1 is good not 100% sure how it go's

[milnerpoint]

ah yeah the old, would you build part of a house and move onto the next bit when the first wasnt completed, love the analogies people use when comparing these situations!!

Aaron, sorry as usual my posts come across as me being a knob, not my intention!!

[bigdanio]

Whilst I am happy playing 11.3, I am not convinced that 12.0 will be anything like 11.4 - i.e. a completely bug free game.

The games always feel brand new, and it takes 2-3 patches to get them right.

10.3 was perfect, but 11.1 was not. What makes you think they carry on from 1 year to the next?

[Pangaea]

Next person to use another bloody car analogy gets infracted if I see it.

But, but, but... car analogies rock

[gullo]

Guys , Neil have explained the situation and I think they are right a little bit. But , again saying , It is not enough to play a %100 ( that is not meaning " perfect " , meaning " without bug " ) Football Manager 2011.

It shouldn't be matter what the bug's importance , minor or major. It will be exist forever and I am not able to play without this bug unless buy FM 2012. The most important shi* is this in this case i think. For example , You have bought Assasin's Creed and noticed a bug , then have reported it Ubisoft and they've said " OK. We will fix it in Assasin's Creed 2 " !!! I think you wouldn't be happy. Logical ? Blizzard still patching Warcraft 3 and Diablo 2 even though they are working every time on World of Warcraft and more for Starcraft 2 , Diablo 3 etc. Many games updating after the released date for months even for years... Now have a think , which one is sensible ?

I can suggest for them that changing patching strategy only for now... SI is good , but I hurt a little...

[Neil Brock]

You do realise Blizzard have a full-time staff of 4,500 (according to Wiki), whilst SI's staff is 66 right? Not trying to make excuses, but if we had much greater resources we perhaps could have a slightly different patching strategy. For our company of our size, I think the dedication we show to our games post-release is pretty good to be honest, especially when there are other sports titles on the market which don't get as much support.

[BiggusD]

You do realise Blizzard have a full-time staff of 4,500 (according to Wiki), whilst SI's staff is 66 right? Not trying to make excuses, but if we had much greater resources we perhaps could have a slightly different patching strategy. For our company of our size, I think the dedication we show to our games post-release is pretty good to be honest, especially when there are other sports titles on the market which don't get as much support.

Both 11.1 and 11.2 increased gameplay value a lot. However, 11.3 didn't really fix anything iirc. The way I see it, both "bug" fixing and database updates are secondary to game balance adjustments. Now tactics are more fragile and oversensitive than ever, and player mentalities likewise.

You are losing an important customer base - those who don't want micromanagement and nitpicking, but just a chance to pretend to be a manager of a football team. Remember that all the voices here on the forums, and other dedicated forums on the net, are the voices of die-hard attention-to-detail freaks with abnormal patience and dedication to this game - which is fine except that this is probably everyone of that kind. The rest would feel revulsion at the thought of playing one match 5, 10 or 100 times again and again in order to fine-tune his or her tactic, which is now, sadly, necessary if you want to succeed in this game.

For future reference here's advise for all SI staff from a guy who have played all versions of the game since 1993, probably a thousand hours each release: Focus on AI and game balance. Everything else is either of secondary importance, or purely cosmetic.

[gullo]

You do realise Blizzard have a full-time staff of 4,500 (according to Wiki), whilst SI's staff is 66 right? Not trying to make excuses, but if we had much greater resources we perhaps could have a slightly different patching strategy. For our company of our size, I think the dedication we show to our games post-release is pretty good to be honest, especially when there are other sports titles on the market which don't get as much support.

I don't think so Blizzard have 4,500 staff , because source is Wiki. Otherwise , Blizzard was only an example. You know there are lots of developer who supports like Blizzard. Maybe Blizzard could has more staff than the others because of they have a lot of title to update.

Yes , You could be right maybe. Even though your size , you are doing good job. But at all charts , Football Manager at number one or top 3 all year round. That should provide to boost your resources i think. Then you could increase your staff and after that will be able to create a patching team. Why you do not ?

[billyboyeden]

. The rest would feel revulsion at the thought of playing one match 5, 10 or 100 times again and again in order to fine-tune his or her tactic, which is now, sadly, necessary if you want to succeed in this game..

I'm sorry but that is the biggest load of rubbish I have ever read on this forum. Not once in any version of fm/cm have I had to reload one match even once. Im not criticising the way you play the game but why would anyone want or need to do that????

[milnerpoint]

re-loading the same game over and over will not refine a tactic, it will give you the false impression that it is if you keep winning, but it will not do you good in the long run.

[sperlz]

I find it very disturbing that they would release an 11.3 game with numerous game damaging bugs and say.... well this is it, we now will go to work on FM12. So for all the purist players who have waited for 11.3 to start their FM11 experience (as the game is unacceptable in the first 2 patches) they are left with a game which is incomplete and full of bugs.

I just dont buy the fact that they cant complete the game, I dont think customers care that they need to work on FM12. For a lot of customers 11.3 is what they have waited for just to start a game and it is littered with bugs, so whats to say that 12.3 wont be the same.

[Dune297]

Both 11.1 and 11.2 increased gameplay value a lot. However, 11.3 didn't really fix anything iirc. The way I see it, both "bug" fixing and database updates are secondary to game balance adjustments. Now tactics are more fragile and oversensitive than ever, and player mentalities likewise.

You are losing an important customer base - those who don't want micromanagement and nitpicking, but just a chance to pretend to be a manager of a football team. Remember that all the voices here on the forums, and other dedicated forums on the net, are the voices of die-hard attention-to-detail freaks with abnormal patience and dedication to this game - which is fine except that this is probably everyone of that kind. The rest would feel revulsion at the thought of playing one match 5, 10 or 100 times again and again in order to fine-tune his or her tactic, which is now, sadly, necessary if you want to succeed in this game.

For future reference here's advise for all SI staff from a guy who have played all versions of the game since 1993, probably a thousand hours each release: Focus on AI and game balance. Everything else is either of secondary importance, or purely cosmetic.

You'd think people would understand when a tiny company of 66 is trying their hardest. I know you'd rather not have them release a new game, all you want is a patch, but they need to support themselves. Who cares if they don't release another patch? Really. They've been working hard and gave us three great patches that have worked out well, and have made me enjoy the game more. I'm a programmer myself, so I know a bit of the challenges they are going through and how long it takes. Please stop expecting them to get everything fixed, nothing is perfect, and the game they have now is pretty darn good. The people who give up on FM will find themselves coming back next year, due to the crap the competitors are releasing in comparitive. So please, stop trying to get them to release more patches, it takes them weeks upon weeks to not only figure out how to fix it, but to release the patch, especially with their small team. If they were to just keep releasing patches, they wouldn't make nearly as much money as they are now, and wouldn't be able to buy contracts with the teams and players to use them, feed themselves, as well as keep bringing out the patches and new installments for you guys. Please, just please, let them release FM12 and see how that goes, who knows, perhaps it will sort out all the bugs that's featured in this version of FM, but on a bigger note, who cares. Every game has bugs, they don't bother me, they shouldn't bother you. Just lay off it for a bit.

[billyboyeden]

spertz

The way the game is developed and all your points have already been answered by Neil,

[milnerpoint]

I find it very disturbing that they would release an 11.3 game with numerous game damaging bugs and say.... well this is it, we now will go to work on FM12. So for all the purist players who have waited for 11.3 to start their FM11 experience (as the game is unacceptable in the first 2 patches) they are left with a game which is incomplete and full of bugs.

I just dont buy the fact that they cant complete the game, I dont think customers care that they need to work on FM12. For a lot of customers 11.3 is what they have waited for just to start a game and it is littered with bugs, so whats to say that 12.3 wont be the same.

the "purists"??!!!

Who the hell are the purists when talking about FM?

[sperlz]

I have a great tip for Neil...

Dont add any new features whatsoever to FM12.... nothing at all. Just fix the game, sort out the database changes and brand the game as the most complete FM of all time. I can guarantee you will get as many if not more sales than you ever have before and then we can all use the forums for talking about how good our teams are and live happily ever after

[billyboyeden]

I have a great tip for Neil...

Dont add any new features whatsoever to FM12.... nothing at all. Just fix the game, sort out the database changes and brand the game as the most complete FM of all time. I can guarantee you will get as many if not more sales than you ever have before and then we can all use the forums for talking about how good our teams are and live happily ever after

The reasons why they can't do that are well documented. For every person who claims they wont buy another one, a new buyer will appear due to the new features. For 66 people to produce a game like this, is incredible.

[milnerpoint]

There is no way to prove more would buy next years game with no new features, its a sensationalist claim that cannot in anyway be backed up.

[BiggusD]

I'm sorry but that is the biggest load of rubbish I have ever read on this forum. Not once in any version of fm/cm have I had to reload one match even once. Im not criticising the way you play the game but why would anyone want or need to do that????

I didn't mean "have to reload" I meant testing tactics by replaying a game with as few variables as possible to figure out why things work and don't work.

Edit: your reading of my comment implies you thought I was cheating. That tells more about you than it does about me, now that we are talking about "rubbish".

[Bababui]

I find it funny that some think a gaming company of 66 is 'tiny', or even small. Id reckon to say that SI are in the largest 5% of gaming companies in the world. We forget about all the really tiny indi gaming companies made up of 5 or fewer employees. Ex SI partners OOTP are just 2 and they release several patches as well as a new game each year. Its not that SI are doing poorly, but in the specific instance of 11.3 they can do a bit better.

[Dune297]

I find it funny that some think a gaming company of 66 is 'tiny', or even small. Id reckon to say that SI are in the largest 5% of gaming companies in the world. We forget about all the really tiny indi gaming companies made up of 5 or fewer employees. Ex SI partners OOTP are just 2 and they release several patches as well as a new game each year. Its not that SI are doing poorly, but in the specific instance of 11.3 they can do a bit better.

Compared to the size of the game and the popularity it gets, it is rather small. You don't see those five man indie companies being on top of the industry.

[rancer890]

About the car analogies...we don't buy cars every year...unless you're really that rich! Stop comparing between buying a video game and a car. FM is USD$40, a car is 20 grand minimum. And imagine you had to go to the shop 3 times a year (like 3 patches for FM) to fix the car...

If SI created a complete game there's really no point other than releasing roster updates (not good for bottom line hehe )

...and games will always have bugs. The game will always have new features, whether you like them or not. They have to have some new features to make you want to buy it. They wouldn't be doing their job if there wasn't something new in the next version of FM (of course, you can also debate they aren't doing their job not fixing all the bugs, but SI can't please 100% of customers). They had to implement agents, board confidence, etc eventually. There's always a feeling out process for a year. Nothing compares testing a game with 20 people than testing a game with tens of thousands, someone's always going to find something wrong one way or another.

[Bababui]

Compared to the size of the game and the popularity it gets, it is rather small. You don't see those five man indie companies being on top of the industry.

What does the above have to do with the discussion? In fact, it only bolsters the argument that SI should try to tie up a few of the loose ends in 11.3 because they can afford to spare a small handful of programmers. But SI is using the 'we are a small company' ploy.

[milnerpoint]

What does the above have to do with the discussion? In fact, it only bolsters the argument that SI should try to tie up a few of the loose ends in 11.3 because they can afford to spare a small handful of programmers. But SI is using the 'we are a small company' ploy.

Surely by the fact you are saying there are loose ends shows they cannot spare a small handful of people? What would that mean for next years edition, if the "purists" think this version has so many problems, i would have thought less people working on the new game means more chance of problems getting through the net, or them not having enough resources to fix them before release.

Also when do they stop working on FM11? We all pretty much accept it wont be perfect, so when do you give up? Do they also take people away from the team next year to continue working on FM12 after the 3 patches? Taking people out of the team to keep working on FM11 wont make FM12 more popular, so they wont replace these people with the extra money they are making.

[Guest]

I totally understand the clamour for a new patch. I've played every version (and every patch) of CM/FM since the series started, and this is the first patch where I've just not been able to get any kind of consistency out of a tactic. The match engine in 11.3 seems to have a much more random feel to it than all the previous versions and I find myself switching and modifying far more often than in earlier patches/games.

[Themer]

I totally understand the clamour for a new patch. I've played every version (and every patch) of CM/FM since the series started, and this is the first patch where I've just not been able to get any kind of consistency out of a tactic. The match engine in 11.3 seems to have a much more random feel to it than all the previous versions and I find myself switching and modifying far more often than in earlier patches/games.

I haven't found this to be the case in the slightest. Infact the thread on in relation to how long can you keep the same tactic going showed that many people have been using the same tactic in their game for years. I've been using a 4-3-1-2 for the duration of my spell at Roma on my current save, from the beginning of the save till 2017, which little to no changes and have found myself winning the two Serie A's, an Italian Cup and a Champions League.

[Q2thaz]

the biggest part of the game is the database and that cannot be done untill the end of the season when the majority of transfers have gone through and teams have been relegated promoted etc.

The ignorance that people spout about every new game just being the latest transfers & new skin really annoys me especially when the research is termed as it is in the post I've quoted.

I'm one of the researchers who spends slightly longer (many many many hours more than you can imagine!) than a couple of weeks in September updating a few transfers here and there. Research for FM is to some extent an all year commitment in that researchers are always looking to tweak & improve the attributes of the players to make them as realistic as possible.

Inputting of player histories at the end of each season is a laborious task at the best of times but each and every researcher who cover 1 club or in some cases (Like Myself) over 100! We give up our time for a small gift in return every year to make the data in the game as realistic as we can for the rest of you, yet there's still people that thing managing a database of over 400,000 people is a couple of weeks worth of work a year.

I'd love to see how many complaints would flood in if the data was compiled in a couple of weeks, although I suspect there'd be more proper issues reported in the data issues forum than some of the fanboyism that appears from time to time

Next time you load up FM, go to the credits & see how many are listed as researchers, it's more than most people realise!

[Nik_Dut]

I don't play Blizzard's games.

How much do they cost ?

[r0x0r]

I don't play Blizzard's games.

How much do they cost ?

Around £30 each, plus around £8 a month I believe it is. £8 or £9 anyway.

There have been 4 games over 6 and a bit years. Assuming you bought the first game 6 years ago. WE've seen 5 new FMs since then, 6 including the one that would have been 6 months old.

So FM would have cost, assuming an average £30 each, £180.

WoW would have cost £120 upfront, plus £576 in monthly fees assuming £8 a month, and not taking advantage of paying for longer periods of time. So almost £700.

WoW also charges you to change name, server or faction, and not pennies either. £20 to change something isn't uncommon.

edit: Add in the sheer number of players they have and you can see how they can afford a team that dwarfs SI's. And that's without the fact that some work will be shared cross-project with the Starcraft and Diablo teams.

[Arbeloa]

The real question is why does SI keeps trying to add new features when the older ones do not work properly. They end up with a huge backload of things to fix and obviously they are struggling to do this. SO many parts of the game do not work correctly now, and they really do not seem to work together. I hope SI just focus on making the game as it is work better...don't add new things until what is there already works.

Would you build anything the way SI do?

I love FM but each year the bugs are growing and game play is sliding.

hear hear.

It's going downhill like pro evo did.

Concentrating on crappy gimmicks instead of core issues just to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

[Nik_Dut]

Around £30 each, plus around £8 a month I believe it is. £8 or £9 anyway.

There have been 4 games over 6 and a bit years. Assuming you bought the first game 6 years ago. WE've seen 5 new FMs since then, 6 including the one that would have been 6 months old.

So FM would have cost, assuming an average £30 each, £180.

WoW would have cost £120 upfront, plus £576 in monthly fees assuming £8 a month, and not taking advantage of paying for longer periods of time. So almost £700.

WoW also charges you to change name, server or faction, and not pennies either. £20 to change something isn't uncommon.

edit: Add in the sheer number of players they have and you can see how they can afford a team that dwarfs SI's. And that's without the fact that some work will be shared cross-project with the Starcraft and Diablo teams.

What about other developers ?

Ones that released offline games and keep providing patch. Is there any ? If is, at what price ?

[davidbowie]

It's one of these things:

Sega are paying SI to churn out a new game every year and not to make any more than 3 patches.

or

SI aren't paid enough to be able to put out a 4th patch, and instead have to immediately concentrate on fixing bugs in the next version (which as we all know, are rarely actually fixed with each new version adding more bugs to the pile).

There's also the the fact that if they patched their game until it was perfect, they would lose sales of the next one.

Personally, I'm just so tired of every release being considerably buggy. Since I started playing 11.3, I've logged at least 20 bug reports.

SI need to take a year off from 'new features' and adding more crap to the game, and fix what they already have, and if they can't, they need to cut the stuff that doesn't work, like the boring press conferences that do nothing but **** your players off, and are a novelty for all of half a season before you get tired of repeating the same questions over and over again with the same answers you always do because you know if you don't, you'll stuff up your team or players' morale and they'll go into the next match as "Very Poor".

The QA department seem to be more concerned with keeping their jobs that actually fixing bugs, because a real QA department wouldn't let the game ship with these bugs. I can't play in Australia because the league has been broken since it was introduced. Every year we post, every year we tell SI exactly what needs to be done to make it playable. It's never done, and they blame the license. If it's the license, then drop it, because it's make you look bad.

[billyboyeden]

I didn't mean "have to reload" I meant testing tactics by replaying a game with as few variables as possible to figure out why things work and don't work.

Edit: your reading of my comment implies you thought I was cheating. That tells more about you than it does about me, now that we are talking about "rubbish".

A apologise if my post came across that way. it was not my intention. Everyone plays the game their own way. Can you explain what you mean about replaying the game?

[milnerpoint]

The QA department seem to be more concerned with keeping their jobs that actually fixing bugs, because a real QA department wouldn't let the game ship with these bugs.

That has to be the single most stupid statement i have ever read on the internet.

[BiggusD]

A apologise if my post came across that way. it was not my intention. Everyone plays the game their own way. Can you explain what you mean about replaying the game?

In order to make sure that it is the tactic and not other factors such as Team Talk that made your players perform like they did in a match, you need to play the same match against the same opponent on the same matchday over and over again. The reason it is no use continuing on to the next match is that everything else changes then, and this is especially important to avoid when you lose - because after a loss the chances are that your players will perform worse than they did in the lost match before. So in order to find out what made you win or lose other than whether or not your team talk "hit home", you need to replay that match with the same team talk, the same team with the same tactic. Was the loss random bad luck? Was it because you played too wide, too quick, is the formation not working, should you set pressure higher up on the pitch, longer quicker passes, inside forwards or crossing wingers?

Of course, once the tactic works, I don't replay games! But before that, in my tactic-testing games, I fix one problem at a time - but if I lose or get thrashed in gameplay but still won or drew - I reload and change things slightly. First and foremost by ruling out team talk as a factor. It is the most important factor in this game, though, so I am glad my tactic worked fine almost from the beginning.

[billyboyeden]

In order to make sure that it is the tactic and not other factors such as Team Talk that made your players perform like they did in a match, you need to play the same match against the same opponent on the same matchday over and over again. The reason it is no use continuing on to the next match is that everything else changes then, and this is especially important to avoid when you lose - because after a loss the chances are that your players will perform worse than they did in the lost match before. So in order to find out what made you win or lose other than whether or not your team talk "hit home", you need to replay that match with the same team talk, the same team with the same tactic. Was the loss random bad luck? Was it because you played too wide, too quick, is the formation not working, should you set pressure higher up on the pitch, longer quicker passes, inside forwards or crossing wingers?

Of course, once the tactic works, I don't replay games! But before that, in my tactic-testing games, I fix one problem at a time - but if I lose or get thrashed in gameplay but still won or drew - I reload and change things slightly. First and foremost by ruling out team talk as a factor. It is the most important factor in this game, though, so I am glad my tactic worked fine almost from the beginning.

Ok, I understand why you do it. some may consider that cheating but Like I said I am not here to criticise the way people play the game but your statement said that people have to reload 5, 10 maybe a hundred times to have any success in the game which is clearly untrue.

[tmonkey]

What gamebreaking issue do you want fixed which hasn't already been done so for FM11 gullo?

The long term game is "broken" imo. Firstly, as per usual there are the problems with big AI clubs having horrible "AI" in terms of building their squad. I've seen Madrid and Barca have £100m+ transfer budgets (and ample room for wages) yet not sign anyone other than cheap no-marks. Why? At best they'll get good youngsters through because of their youth academy/recruitment attributes, but if a mid table club has one of the world's best players playing for them, they'll make a few tentative glances before giving up at the first hurdle (which usually involves making a cheap bid).

Secondly, you guys have tweaked something too much compared to earlier versions of FM/CM so that there is barely any competition for signing a good player now. The general lack of activity in the transfer market is "game breaking" for me because transfers and squad building is a massive part of the game, and if I can sign numerous good players without a single AI club competing with me, then yeah, compared to previous versions (when even shortlisting a good player used to result in a scramble from numerous clubs) something is "broken". Or if you want another example, I have numerous world class players at my upper mid table club, yet not a single multi million pount bid (even though I've edited those players to be fantastic) despite constant nosing around by AI managers (and the wages being moderate). I know other people have games where this club bids a good amount for player X, but it's not happening in my games when it should be a regular thing, so I think the point still stands that there is an issue here. It means I struggle to sell a good player unless I transfer list him, and therefore squad building is unrealistic, and hence the entire game feels pointless to me because it's both too easy and you're stuck with what you get. Similarly, I have talented youngsters available for loan, yet noone decent wants him (if anyone plays with the English leagues active, then e.g. Wilshere or Ramsey forever being listed for loan should ring a bell). Also, try playing around with player swaps - something else that is broken. I've not seen a single AI part-exchange from 11.1 to 11.3, nor will the AI accept any even if offering a good deal.

Thirdly, again the regen system. Randomly distributed attributes, poor hidden ones, etc etc. There's no point going over what has been gone over 100 times.

Fourthly, the agent system is making contract renewals ridiculous. It's a good idea, but needs to be developed further. As has been posted on this forum, there are silly things going on like an agent asking for a ridiculous contract and agent/player fee for a backup player who is approaching 30, then accepting 1/5th of that contract from another club (without there being any game reason for this using scouting utilities, e.g disliking the club or being unhappy).

So I'd love it if you guys could focus properly/in depth on the long term game for FM12 instead of adding unnecessary features.

As for FM11, yeah the game is clearly under-developed. There are still a host of issues prevalent, such as those mentioned above and others (e.g. my quality strikers have scored more goals from rebounds then they have when put through 1-on-1, or strikers with great jumping/strength/heading and good movement/anticipation/all round stats rarely score headed goals from crosses for me, instead my wingers who are useless in the air will do more damage with headed goals, so on and so forth). Although I don't normally mind the 3-patch approach, I think FM11 took the **** a bit this year because the game was so bad on release due to the horrible problems that (to SI's credit) were admitted to (those "last minute changes") that it feels like patches 1-3 were just patches that were aimed at fixing the major problems from release, instead of actually developing the game further and improving issues that weren't "broken" but still flawed (such as the horrible transfer market which has only been slightly improved). I appreciate you guys do work hard and are passionate (though I would also add from a few SEGA testers I know that there's a reluctance to take on board any criticism by your programmers), but then the criticism is aimed at the game, not you guys, and if anything it's the guys above you who have made a commercial decision to release every year pre-Christmas irrespective of what state the development of FM is in who are to blame. FM2011 should not have been released in the state it was for example, but you did so anyway because you didn't want to miss out on the Chrimbo money even though the game was a mess. I think it's a bit silly therefore to not expect anyone to moan about the game or how the patches have worked out this year.

[r0x0r]

What about other developers ?

Ones that released offline games and keep providing patch. Is there any ? If is, at what price ?

I can't think of many games that release more than three patches a year really, excluding hotfixes for huge issues, which SI do as well.

These days a game company is far more likely to release a bunch of DLC.

[Themer]

I can't think of many games that release more than three patches a year really, excluding hotfixes for huge issues, which SI do as well.

These days a game company is far more likely to release a bunch of DLC.

Paradox Interactive? No idea on the numbers of programmers though.

[r0x0r]

Paradox Interactive? No idea on the numbers of programmers though.

Go have a look at their bloated games list. Bloated by the number of expansions. Therefore the number of patches for the main game is somewhat distorted. Add to that the fact that they are working on several games at any one time, with multiple teams, and they probably have a dedicated patch testing team. This would take away some of the opportunity cost related to a patch. With SI being a single team for the most part, they have to stop work on testing new stuff while they make sure a patch is ready. Twice. If we hadn't had patches 11.1 and 11.2, we could have probably had 11.3 a month earlier than we did. That's assuming each patch only takes 2 weeks away from bug fixing to concentrate on getting the patch itself ready. It may be even more. If paradox can simply hand over their latest internal build to the patch team to deal with, they can carry on working on the title at the same time. And their sheer number of games mean that the patch team can be kept on permanently, as there will always be something to work on.

[Nik_Dut]

I can't think of many games that release more than three patches a year really, excluding hotfixes for huge issues, which SI do as well.

These days a game company is far more likely to release a bunch of DLC.

i remember my friend told me once about one sid meyer (spelling?) made game, iirc civilization, that kept having fixes so many to made a perfect game, and they even kept supporting previous titles even though there are newer titles as in part 2, part 3 etc. Is that correct ?

and microsoft, kept providing supports for XP and Vista. but they're a giant company, i know. SEGA, imo is not a small company either.

and again, i can understand the decision of the decision makers of FM. economic law: why bother if this far is sufficient ?

[davidbowie]

I can't think of many games that release more than three patches a year really, excluding hotfixes for huge issues, which SI do as well.

These days a game company is far more likely to release a bunch of DLC.

Valve, Blizzard, Dice, EA, Crytek, Bioware, GSC Gameworld, THQ, Malfador, Activision, IW, Bungie etc.