Should Football Manager switch to a release every 2 years?

[brawla123]

I don't think the bug forums could handle it.

I love this

[fmobande]

I don't think the bug forums could handle it.

I start to feel like you actually adore the bugs ?

[fmobande]

I think this is a perfect idea, release it every 2 years, and the off year with a squad update.

makes the game more worth the price

[Cougar2010]

I think this is a perfect idea, release it every 2 years, and the off year with a squad update.

makes the game more worth the price

Are you saying its not worth the price now?

How many hours did you put into FM14? How much did you pay?

How much do you pay for other games/hobbies? For how long?

Come back when you find something even close to what FM gives you.

[ManagerFootball]

Are you saying its not worth the price now?

How many hours did you put into FM14? How much did you pay?

How much do you pay for other games/hobbies? For how long?

Come back when you find something even close to what FM gives you.

With the pre-order it and be our testers so we can save money attitude, then no its no longer currently worth even £20.

I played lots and lots of hours on FM2014, infact I ditched FM2015 and went back to FM2014. Fm2014 deserved my money in the end, FM2015 does not.

That is irrelevant. In fairness tho when I go and play some Golf I come across some bugs too when collecting my balls.

This years version has given me an headache. Has clearly demonstrated the start of a transition to tablet idiots. The animations dont look right at all to me, the ME is very strange. Movember aint a new feature, stop saying it is. The tactics screen is a design joke. All the bugs are shocking. How did this even get Beta tested. I just dot understand it at all. They have broken lots of things that were not broke before. I hate this years version with a passion.

[fmobande]

Are you saying its not worth the price now?

How many hours did you put into FM14? How much did you pay?

How much do you pay for other games/hobbies? For how long?

Come back when you find something even close to what FM gives you.

FM is my favourite game of all time, i won't lie, but i can't deny that when it is bugged to a high extent, it leaves me going back to FM 14. which makes FM 15 less valuable as a game when it first comes out, since it is rigged with bugs.

However i know nothing is perfect, and I understand fixing these bugs takes some time, so i will not disrespect SI by saying it's a terrible game series. I just don't want people to act like this game doesn't have problems and i feel like every suggestion like this one is good for the series, and every complaint about the ME bugs etc

This is a perfect idea for the game, release it every 2 years, the off year being a updated roster, it is disrespectful to the fans for releasing a game in such condition

[aiston]

Far too many of the same bugs are happening every single release, it then takes what feels like an extended BETA period (even up to March this year for FM14). £30 seems extortionate right now for the state the game gets released in these days.

I'd happily pay £10-15 for the 'roster' update in the year the full game isn't released.

I've been playing CM/ FM since 99/00 and FM15 is the first I haven't bought as near to release as I could, the £18 on Amazon isn't even tempting me right now. Felt too much like a BETA player for the whole period I played FM14.

FM14 - 91% Very positive Steam user reviews

FM15 - 72% Steam user reviews

[ManagerFootball]

However i know nothing is perfect, and I understand fixing these bugs takes some time, so i will not disrespect SI by saying it's a terrible game series. I just don't want people to act like this game doesn't have problems and i feel like every suggestion like this one is good for the series, and every complaint about the ME bugs etc

With all due to respect to you sir, it is because of sentiments like this that game developers throughout the entire industry now released and patch them later. Go and see what a french developer recently released, and they knew about it so that is with intent. How in the name did this game get through apparent in house testing and a two week mass public beta test with so many fundemental bugs? Can anyone say something logical about that? How am I supposed to then believe its not just smoke and mirrors to get some pre-order sales.

Stop releasing games full of bugs its that simple is it not?

[oche balboa]

Who knows

[themadsheep2001]

Largely an irrelevant discussion to be honest, as it's never going to happen. More pertinent question is whether you feel the need to purchase it every year.

[Spedding]

But the thing with roster updTes is theres people who do roster updates free so unless they do away with the editor it will be a meaningless endeavor

[Rhys12345]

They couldn't support their workers if they didn't do a yearly release. Sega aren't going to keep employees that a) aren't working and b) aren't making money. So if those workers were gone, the game would be poorer. You can't tell the employees you haven't got a job for a year but come back next year. The best employees would go elsewhere, soon enough other game developers would look to fill the void.

[QWERTYOP]

From a gamers pov, yes absolutely. From a running a business pov, it'll never happen. The problem that a yearly release brings is that there are too many changes for changes sake. It's like they feel like they HAVE to change a number of things in the game to justify a yearly release. Problem being they often "fix" (ruin) parts of the game that aren't broken and already work perfectly well.

[FrazT]

So to conclude, yes plenty of people would be interested in it, but no it will never happen because it's a business and not just a game and the business needs it's profits and the staff need their jobs

In truth, this sums it up pretty accuratley

[SirSpecialness]

Can a mod explain why my post has been deleted?

seems pretty shady to me if this is common practice.

[Some Guy!]

What I find amazing is the disconnect between the Match Engine rants in General Discussion, and the actual volume of complete Bug Reports that are raised.

There are all sorts of histrionics in here, but it is generally a sparse sea of well reasoned calm in the Bugs section.

There are obviously other sections of the game that aren't exclusively Match Engine related, but that's the bit that matters to me, and I'm intrigued by the lack of proactive bug reporting.

This is the thing though, I tend to report the bugs I actually find, and they tend to be promptly fixed. The big thing about having two releases a year (what the joke was about) is that if there was a 2 week beta period and a release every 6 months, that would be ~8% of each release would be spent in beta.

[ScotchWhisky]

I couldn't be bothered reading your post after

You are a clueless child.

In fact I've got a solution for you, forget about this whole pointless idea and just buy the game every other year.

.....

Sorry he gets under my skin.

As I can't answer your question in this thread, I'll PM you my answer.

*yawn* Everyone else is having a pretty positive conversation on this and points are respectably being agreed and disagreed with. Why can't you? That is the last I am saying to you here or anywhere else on these boards.

The best thing to do if you can't deal with the bugs is wait until the final patch every year, then buy it at a discount.

That idea sounds reasonable except this. When you pay full price for a game, don't you expect that it's finished and polished? That is how the gaming industry used to be before Steam and other software managing programs made patching so easy.

Online polls are pointless as it only captures the few hundred that visit these here forums.

SI know how to run their business and there's no debate over that - unless you work for SI or on their Board.

Silly argument with no basis in reality.

I don't disagree with any of that except the last line. If they could continue doing well, then why not?

As I said in the beginning, it's a pointless argument as no matter how you dress it up SI will lose half their income, the vast majority of FM players buy it every year and there's no way SI would be able to make up those sales using your suggested development schedule.

I doubt it's the vast majority. I would say the majority on these forums, yes. But the majority who do not visit these forums likely do not. Even the poll for those on these forums only is split right down the middle. Though I do not know how many of those that voted yes have been buying annually anyways.

You're talking about a series on PC with a very healthy modding scene, so I don't think there'd be very many at all who'd pay even a small fee for a roster update when they can reliably get it for free (and if modding tools were removed to accommodate such a change in the business model, that'd upset the community considerably more)

I wonder how many people beyond these forums know about the new rosters? If it showed up in Steam DLC, a lot of people may buy it anyways. I usually am not one who likes to download a lot of user mods so I would pay for the official roster update. But of course, that's just me.

Also, your primary argument for a two-year dev cycle is more time for testing stuff so obvious bugs are removed, but Championship Manager 2010 had a two-year cycle and it was still abysmally bug-ridden. This included bloopers such as a replay of a goal where the goalkeeper saved the ball because he jumped to the right when the goal was scored but jumped to the left in the replay, and in another match (not my own) Arsenal beat Spurs 3-0 despite being reduced to ten men and I wanted to check the highlights. In the highlights, there was no indication at all of a red card in the match, and the first goal was apparently scored by someone who never even played in the match (the highlight clearly had Rosicky scoring and it was listed as his goal, even though outside the highlights everything I found suggested the goal was scored by their new signing Misimovic and that Rosicky was an unused sub). There were also issues like a scout report that said someone had potential to be an established first-team player at one of the best clubs in the world but simultaneously recommended not signing him because he wasn't currently as good as the players already there. I found more bugs (and far more obvious ones) in the 3-4 hours I played CM10 than in the 100+ hours I put into FM15's beta.

I don't think this is fair because SI didn't make the newer version of Championship Manager. I would guess there reason Football Manager is still around and Championship Manger is not is for the exact reasons you mentioned. The FM programming team was likely better to meet the challenges. If FM could crush CM in the bug department when FM was on a one year cycle and CM was on a two year cycle, then imagine what SI could do with a two year cycle!

It is not a difficult concept to understand. This is a company with one product, not a company that derives revenue from multiple products. If they skipped to releasing every other year, then they would either: a) have to reduce staff, b) diversify into other games. Either way, the impact is not the one you are hoping for. Lower resources or resources that are focused on other products does not translate into more time focused on FM and more/smoother developments between versions.

They actually have released a few other games. I noticed they used to create a game known as NHL Eastside Hockey Manager. I would have found that very interesting. Of course, having other projects like that would potentially deter staff from working on FM and thus be counter productive. What I am curious about is how much has creating a mobile version hurt the actual PC version of the game by taking time away from it? I am not sure who would want to play this game on their phone. That would drive me batty. Not only kill my battery, but just clicking through all the screens would be very inconvenient on a mobile device.

What I find amazing is the disconnect between the Match Engine rants in General Discussion, and the actual volume of complete Bug Reports that are raised.

There are all sorts of histrionics in here, but it is generally a sparse sea of well reasoned calm in the Bugs section.

There are obviously other sections of the game that aren't exclusively Match Engine related, but that's the bit that matters to me, and I'm intrigued by the lack of proactive bug reporting.

I don't ever post bug reports related to the match engine because I know if I do, someone will just say "it's your tactics!" And great, maybe it is. But how can that ever be proven? If I save the game right before match and replay it with identical settings, then the result will be different each time. Changing tactics will produce a different result, but how much of that is tactical and how much of it is random seeding? By the way, when you see a ball rolling towards a player and your player's feet spin like Road Runner while the opposition comes from much further way to claim the ball, is that considered a bug or is that just something we deal with when having a 3d engine?

Are you saying its not worth the price now?

How many hours did you put into FM14? How much did you pay?

How much do you pay for other games/hobbies? For how long?

Come back when you find something even close to what FM gives you.

Though not directed at me, I will answer this. I do not play a lot of games. FM '13 I had 366 hours, FM '11 unkown as I did not use Steam for it but I know it was much less than I put into '13 or '09, FM '09 (or Worldwide Soccer Manager 2009 as it was called stateside) it says five hours on steam, but that is wrong. I'd estimate 100 hours on that version. Hearts of Iron III I played 36 hours (far more on the original HOI, but I was in high school back then...), Europa Universalis IV 138 hours, Rome Total War II 225 hours and finally Civilization V 40 hours. I also spent a guestimated 120 hours on Skyrim, but that was on my XBox360 which hasn't been hooked up in over a year.

So do I put more into FM, yes. But that's also because I don't buy each season. I didn't buy '13 until at least past January as they were already done with patches. The last time I played '13 was also on 5/16/2014. Oh, for the record, the only reason I bought '13 is because the stupid anti-piracy protection had expired and the company that provided it went out of business. I saw on these forums I could have worked around it with mod help, but I figured it just easier to buy the new version. Not sure why I bought '15 so quickly...

So what gives close to what FM provides.. any sports game. I put numerous hours into NHL '09 and Tiger Woods golf '04, as well as FIFA '05. Any strategy game. I love things like Europa Universalis IV and Hearts of Iron. Main reason I quit playing those is I get busy and lose time. By the time I am done being busy, I don't feel like creating a new addiction. FM does provide a lot for sure. But, on a year to year basis, the change is small and what is provided does not feel like as much.

From a gamers pov, yes absolutely. From a running a business pov, it'll never happen. The problem that a yearly release brings is that there are too many changes for changes sake. It's like they feel like they HAVE to change a number of things in the game to justify a yearly release. Problem being they often "fix" (ruin) parts of the game that aren't broken and already work perfectly well.

And that there is the biggest problem. Changing things for the sake of change. Sometimes it's not really adding new features. It's just changing old features to "improve" things. Such as the interface which went from very nice to meh. A two year cycle would help ease this problem. SI is not the only company to do this.. I tell ya, if I could go back to Windows '95/'98 and have all the modern day stuff supported, I would in a heartbeat.

One final point, I have seen many on these forums say they are done with the game now due to bugs. It's hard to say how many are serious. But if there was a slower development cycle and the game was (theoretically) released a lot less buggy, is it possible the user base would actually expand and thus some of the losses would again be offset?

[FrazT]

Can a mod explain why my post has been deleted?

seems pretty shady to me if this is common practice.

I can't speak for Kriss, but your first post wasn't relevant to the poll and was on a different tack. All the Mods have the discretion to edit or delete posts, so there is nothing shady about it.

[Some Guy!]

There is absolutely no way in which this idea could be done in a way that wouldn't have people accusing them of trying to screw more money out of the customer.

I mean, seriously. If they go to one version every two years, but charge more, people will accuse them of trying to screw the customer for money. If they don't charge more, but charge for database updates, people will still accuse them of that. There will also be people calling them "lazy" for not releasing a new version each year.

I can't speak for Kriss, but your first post wasn't relevant to the poll and was on a different tack. All the Mods have the discretion to edit or delete posts, so there is nothing shady about it.

Just because the Mods have the power to do so doesn't make it not shady. Not saying a disagree with them doing it, nor am I saying it is shady, but it being within their powers doesn't change if it's shady or not.

[Boltman]

Last couple of years I've just waited until Easter to buy so I get a half-way playable product 'straight out of the box'. It's far less frustrating that way even if it does mean waiting 6 months for updated teams. I got so fed up of release day builds with hugely irritating and blindingly obvious bugs, and the 'game runs without crashing therefore it's playable' official line from SI that I just stopped buying it at full price. Oh, that's another bonus - Thirty quid or a fiver?

I honestly couldn't care less about having an annual release when it invariably comes with what feel like largely cosmetic changes only, but it always includes a whole raft of what I consider to be experience-ruining bugs. I'd far rather have a more playable product every second year with a squad update in between, even if that meant paying twice as much. It's not workable for SI though so, understandably, it won't happen.

[Xavessi]

Although I agree with many points raised by the OP and other posters, I have to come down on the side of an annual release.

Basically, the core game has barely changed for over 10 years, so what is the point of switching to a 2 year cycle? Nothing will change - people will still complain about it being bugged and unfinished because it always will be.

In my opinon, the only feasible strategy is either a yearly release or a subscription model, and I would never support the latter.

[ScotchWhisky]

There is absolutely no way in which this idea could be done in a way that wouldn't have people accusing them of trying to screw more money out of the customer.

I mean, seriously. If they go to one version every two years, but charge more, people will accuse them of trying to screw the customer for money. If they don't charge more, but charge for database updates, people will still accuse them of that. There will also be people calling them "lazy" for not releasing a new version each year.

These are very good points and you are likely right there.

Last couple of years I've just waited until Easter to buy so I get a half-way playable product 'straight out of the box'. It's far less frustrating that way even if it does mean waiting 6 months for updated teams. I got so fed up of release day builds with hugely irritating and blindingly obvious bugs, and the 'game runs without crashing therefore it's playable' official line from SI that I just stopped buying it at full price. Oh, that's another bonus - Thirty quid or a fiver?

I honestly couldn't care less with having an annual update with what invariably feels like mostly cosmetic changes when it invariably comes with a whole raft of what I consider to be experience-ruining bugs. I'd far rather have a more playable product every second year with a squad update in between, even if that meant paying twice as much. It's not workable for SI though so, understandably, it won't happen.

Your first paragraph reminds me of something. I frequently see people say their tactics that seemed good prior to patch suddenly seem bad. One of the SI staff agreed that as updates are made, some tactics will go to pot (it makes sense, especially if things like too many goals on crosses are fixed). So doesn't it almost seem too bad for the customer that buys originally to always have to change the way they play due to bugs being fixed?

Your second paragraph brings up a point I didn't think of. Many are saying SI would lose half their revenue if they went to biennial updates. I didn't even think about the fact that many buy it at a later discounted price. What if many of those, like you, began buying it at release because it was less buggy. That would offset many of the losses as well.

[ScotchWhisky]

Basically, the core game has barely changed for over 10 years, so what is the point of switching to a 2 year cycle? Nothing will change - people will still complain about it being bugged and unfinished because it always will be.

In my opinon, the only feasible strategy is either a yearly release or a subscription model, and I would never support the latter.

What is the point of an annual update if the core doesn't really change? Just to generate revenue? There is one way I could see supporting a subscription model. Imagine a massive multiplayer version. In this version, the football calendar corresponds with the real life calendar. Every manager would start out as a lower league manager and over the literal years, you would begin to be hired by better clubs (still AI or, perhaps the best clubs, SI ran). You would be required to watch your matches in full and if you miss them, then your assistant takes over the tactical side of it. Miss too many and you may potentially get fired.... this idea actually sounds exciting to me as a compliment to the actual FM. But that would be for another thread on another day.

[DazRTaylor]

I can't speak for Kriss, but your first post wasn't relevant to the poll and was on a different tack. All the Mods have the discretion to edit or delete posts, so there is nothing shady about it.

With all due respect mate, I have seen a couple of mods abuse their power (not on this part of the forum I might add) so it can be seen as "shady" (again, not on this part of the forum though). I have seen one particular mod hand out numerous fractions for people daring to criticise Man Utd!

Back on topic - Nice idea, but will never happen for reasons detailed elsewhere.

[SirSpecialness]

I can't speak for Kriss, but your first post wasn't relevant to the poll and was on a different tack. All the Mods have the discretion to edit or delete posts, so there is nothing shady about it.

you can understand that it looks like censorship for deleting a post that said "we deserve a less broken final build at release"?? Just a simple statement, no aggro or trolling & it speaks directly to the theme behind this thread.

[HUNT3R]

you can understand that it looks like censorship for deleting a post that said "we deserve a less broken final build at release"?? Just a simple statement, no aggro or trolling & it speaks directly to the theme behind this thread.

That's not particularly constructive. There are House Rules on the forum (link in the header and the main forum page) and it explains what will be allowed and what won't be.

[HUNT3R]

With all due respect mate, I have seen a couple of mods abuse their power (not on this part of the forum I might add) so it can be seen as "shady" (again, not on this part of the forum though). I have seen one particular mod hand out numerous fractions for people daring to criticise Man Utd!

Back on topic - Nice idea, but will never happen for reasons detailed elsewhere.

Those were "joke" infractions between regulars that expired within an hour. Both the mod and the user on the receiving end knew this. It was in the football forum as well. In GD we don't do that, because of the confusion it might cause with all the newcomers.

[martplfc1]

you can understand that it looks like censorship for deleting a post that said "we deserve a less broken final build at release"?? Just a simple statement, no aggro or trolling & it speaks directly to the theme behind this thread.

That statement adds nothing constructive to the discussion. It's obvious why it's been deleted.

For me, it would be a terrible business decision to make biennial releases. There is a healthy majority who enjoy the game on release and enjoy helping SI improve it. I feel a biennial release would see the game slowly die, as it would still be buggy on release, would cost more and apart from the 'hard core' fans, there is a risk that interest in the game would dwindle.

It's just not going to happen. The game needs to be released annually for it to keep improving.

[HUNT3R]

Scotchwhiskey, have a read through the bug reports in the ME section. You'll get a good sense of what the forum is about.

In rare cases, questions will be asked of your tactics, but it's not as bad as you think. If you take the time to submit a report and PKM, it won't just get dismissed with a simple "it's your tactics!". Reports are very much appreciated.

[ScotchWhisky]

In rare cases, questions will be asked of your tactics, but it's not as bad as you think. If you take the time to submit a report and PKM, it won't just get dismissed with a simple "it's your tactics!". Reports are very much appreciated.

For future reference, where are match PKMs located? Is every one saved or are they overwritten with time?

[HUNT3R]

For future reference, where are match PKMs located? Is every one saved or are they overwritten with time?

You can click on any of your fixtures (or those in your league, because they'll be simulated in full detail) and there will be an option to "Save Match". That saves it as a PKM and you can name it anything you like. It's a tiny file as well.

[SirSpecialness]

That statement adds nothing constructive to the discussion. It's obvious why it's been deleted.

Really???

In the OP the reasons given for proposing a once every 2 year release is, and i quote, "2) Games are released with more bugs than should be acceptable. ". Incidentally i would agree. Take away that reason by releasing a more QA tested product and you nullify one of the core reasons behind the proposal to change the annual release formula. How does my post not speak directly to that issue and the purpose of this thread???

Personally Im all for the annual release model. I just dont like buying on release and having to wait until Jan fixes before i can jump in.

[forameuss]

There's terribly thought out ideas by the bucketload on this forum, but this one stands out all on its own. It's an absolutely terrible idea.

It shows a remarkable misunderstanding of how development works to say that releasing every two years would mean the game becomes this utopian epic that was totally "playable" (cringe) and had no bugs. That is absolutely and demonstrably false. What would actually happen would be that the usual ~6 months of development of new features and ~5 months of testing/fixing for each release would just be doubled. So say they let the lunatics run the asylum and decide not to release FM16. FM17 would roll around with the features that would've been in FM16 plus the ones that would've been in FM17, with most of the bugs from 17 and some from 16. Then the same people who whined about it going biennially would be the first to line up and pillory SI for how "broken" and "unplayable" the new edition is. "But hoooooow is it so unplayable, you had two yeeeeears waaaaah".

So no, it'll never happen. Never should, never will.

[martplfc1]

Really???

In the OP the reasons given for proposing a once every 2 year release is, and i quote, "2) Games are released with more bugs than should be acceptable. ". Incidentally i would agree. Take away that reason by releasing a more QA tested product and you nullify one of the core reasons behind the proposal to change the annual release formula. How does my post not speak directly to that issue and the purpose of this thread???

Personally Im all for the annual release model. I just dont like buying on release and having to wait until Jan fixes before i can jump in.

Yes really. All it does is make you sound whiney, like you're stood outside SI's offices picketing. "We deserve this, we deserve that". It's not a statutory right ffs. Don't buy the game if you're unhappy.

[forameuss]

Yes really. All it does is make you sound whiney, like you're stood outside SI's offices picketing. "We deserve this, we deserve that". It's not a statutory right ffs. Don't buy the game if you're unhappy.

But...but...but...the customer is always right?!

[martplfc1]

It's a bit like going into a supermarket, trying the cheese samples and spitting it out because you don't like it. Then buying a full packet of the same cheese and complaining it's not to your taste

[cleaner475]

That idea sounds reasonable except this. When you pay full price for a game, don't you expect that it's finished and polished? That is how the gaming industry used to be before Steam and other software managing programs made patching so easy.

An old myth that just isn't true. Loads of games were released with bugs, some of which left you unable to complete the game (Jet Set Willy being one famous example. One of the most popular games in history and it couldn't actually be completed!). The brilliance of modern technology means we can now get updates to games to fix the bugs.

But to say games used to be released in a more finished condition than they are today is just plain wrong.

[milnerpoint]

No other game is released with fundamental bugs and this is what frustrates FM fans.

Except Assasins Creed, Halo, COD, ROME, GTA 5, and Destiny, and thats just the games released in the last 6 months.

[milnerpoint]

An old myth that just isn't true. Loads of games were released with bugs, some of which left you unable to complete the game (Jet Set Willy being one famous example. One of the most popular games in history and it couldn't actually be completed!). The brilliance of modern technology means we can now get updates to games to fix the bugs.

But to say games used to be released in a more finished condition than they are today is just plain wrong.

If your as old as Kriss, you will remember when the only way to get a "patch" was to hope for a release in a computer magazine, and you would have to be really lucky to get one. Bugs have always been in games, but back then we didnt really care about them.

[forameuss]

Except Assasins Creed, Halo, COD, ROME, GTA 5, and Destiny, and thats just the games released in the last 6 months. pretty much every game ever

Fixed that for you.

[cleaner475]

If your as old as Kriss, you will remember when the only way to get a "patch" was to hope for a release in a computer magazine, and you would have to be really lucky to get one. Bugs have always been in games, but back then we didnt really care about them.

Haha, I'm not that old but my dad has shown me a lot of retro games over the years, strangely he can't stand the modern stuff!

Was just reading the Jet Set Willy wiki page now that the games stuck in my head, found it quite interesting that it points out that they actually showed you how to get around it's anti-piracy technology in one of those computer magazines! Times have definitely changed in that regard

[Boltman]

It shows a remarkable misunderstanding of how development works to say that releasing every two years would mean the game becomes this utopian epic that was totally "playable" (cringe) and had no bugs. That is absolutely and demonstrably false. .

Just as well nobody in their right mind would expect that to be the case, irrespective of whether they'd prefer yearly releases or not, isn't it?

Perhaps a longer testing period might lead to bugs like the glaringly obvious penalty problem in FM14 being picked up, but more pertinently, a longer life-cycle might actually make it less comfortable for SI to dodge out of adressing it and palm us off with a new iteration instead. That's why I take the view I do, I'm sick of being asked to pay £30 for a game I know will never be adequately finished, when I paid for a game which was never adequately finished 12 months earlier. Rinse and repeat.

£30 for a patch and a data update gets tiresome very quickly. And yes, I've already stated I'd be happy to pay twice the price, half as often, if it meant I finally got to play a game which actually felt like a finished version and not one which was left with obvious, fundamental bugs which the producer has decided aren't worth bothering to try to fix because they've moved on to their next incarnation.

[forameuss]

Just as well nobody in their right mind would expect that to be the case, irrespective of whether they'd prefer yearly releases or not, isn't it?

It might be slightly hyperbolic, but the general consensus when this gets brought up time and time again is that more development time = less bugs. So yeah, right mind or not, seems like they do expect it.

[Boltman]

It might be slightly hyperbolic, but the general consensus when this gets brought up time and time again is that more development time = less bugs. So yeah, right mind or not, seems like they do expect it.

I accept your point, agree with it in fact, but for some of us it's not really a question of quantity in as much the sense of frustration when the answer to 'this game still has the glaring flaw it's had since beta' is invariably '£30 next November please'.

[forameuss]

I accept your point, agree with it in fact, but for some of us it's not really a question of quantity in as much the sense of frustration when the answer to 'this game still has the glaring flaw it's had since beta' is invariably '£30 next November please'.

I can see that point, and it is frustrating when these things happen. I just completely disagree that totally missing a release is the silver bullet that fixes that. If there are flaws, and they are reported properly, then SI will fix them as best they can. If they deem it high enough priority, and they still take a while to fix it, then it must be a tough one. The problem (for users at least) is probably the relatively black-box nature of what happens after the bug report is acknowledged. I can see why they do it, and completely accept the fact, but it's not good enough for some I guess.

There is no way they'll see a bug report, acknowledge it and then just ignore it. They will always be prioritising the things raised. Everything will be logged. They wouldn't last if that was their attitude, they're just not big enough. They're not stupid enough to think they can just rest on their laurels (ala EA, natch) and rake in the money anyway. They are ALWAYS listening, and ALWAYS trying to fix bugs and continue to innovate.

[Defensive]

Most pointless thread in history! Go on!

[Boltman]

You've got to remember, a lot of people wouldn't be so quick to let go of double the price like you would. They want it complete and bug free, but they want it cheap as possible at the same time. In an ideal world this would work, but we don't live in an ideal world unfortunately (something I quickly learned where I work).

Yes I accept that.

This is more of a personal bugbear of mine than any realistic expectation anything will change. As I already acknowledged, it's totally unworkable and will never happen. I just wish for once I had a version of FM where a year after release I wasn't still sat spitting feathers either 'corner bug.....grrrrrrrr' 'penalties bug.........grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr' 'players shooting from the corner-flag into the side-netting 20x per game when I have 'shoot less' and 'cross more often' on ....grrrrrrrrrrrrrr'. You know the drill.

[El Presidente]

That's as good a business model as bringing back FML!

I bet SI are glad the OP is not running their business.

[forameuss]

Yes I accept that.

This is more of a personal bugbear of mine than any realistic expectation anything will change. As I already acknowledged, it's totally unworkable and will never happen. I just wish for once I had a version of FM where a year after release I wasn't still sat spitting feathers either 'corner bug.....grrrrrrrr' 'penalties bug.........grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr' 'players shooting from the corner-flag into the side-netting 20x per game when I have 'shoot less' and 'cross more often' on ....grrrrrrrrrrrrrr'. You know the drill.

I don't think you'd find anyone - on this forum or not - who doesn't wish that. But that's testament to how complex the ME has become.

Take the corner bug for example, which has probably been in the game in some form ever since there was a match engine. I remember back in the days of FML and whatever FM was released at that time, that setting a strong, tall, good header of the ball to the front post was just like buying goals. So how do we fix that? We'll make it so that the near post is better defended at corners. Oh but wait, we've now just moved the problem. Turns out the back post is now pretty much indefensible. Ok, let's tweak defending in general from set pieces. Oops, now no-one scores from corners at all. And that's just a self-contained example. Adjusting one very small thing can mean that something else changes far down the line. If that's something that you can only test by watching several matches in isolation and hoping it comes up, then you can understand why things don't get caught when you're under pressure to fix something else.

It's like releasing progressively larger animals to cull the slightly smaller ones. At no point have you solved a problem without creating another. It's a very delicate balancing act.

[jayahr]

I don't see how publishing just every second year could do any good for anyone :confused:

SI would make less money and would accordingly have to spend less on improving the game. More development time might mean less bugs, but the overall progress of the game would suffer, because there will actually be LESS development time over two years, not more.

SI would get less feedback. Our feedback is the most valuable source of input when it comes to improving the game and dealing with bugs. For the lack of feedback one would have to expect any biannual release to be afected by bugs as much as the annual one.

There is no positive for the user too. Buying the game just in every second year will lead to a better game than buying every time with a biannual release. What's the point? Like, really !?!

btw I just buy every second edition (but for other reasons) and apart from not being able to post here on the current version (as I leave out the uneven years) and apart from being unable to get valuable info on it in here as all feedback is directed to the bulk thread, I shall have a better FM16 than I would have if SI had not published FM15 in between