Lack of "healthy competition" damaging FM development?

[bassistuk]

Coke/Pepsi

Apple/Samsung

Fifa/pes 

The list goes on... 

So this got me thinking. There isn't really any other title like FM since CM was brushed aside in 2016! Has this made a major impact of the quality of FM games in recent years? Although I've enjoyed every title... There hasn't really been anything groundbreaking in FM in a while even though weve had "dynamics" added in fm18 which i find adds nothing special to the game frankly. I think being the only major football management title it's hard to find inspiration and unique features that out do each other.  if there was a similar title on par with FM, Perhaps we would see a better iteration every year due to "healthy competition" as they say. 

[Cougar2010]

Do you work harder/better in your job because of competitors in your industry?

I also love that you've added Coke/Pepsi in there who have had the same recipes for over 100 years

[bassistuk]

4 minutes ago, Cougar2010 said:

Do you work harder/better in your job because of competitors in your industry?

I also love that you've added Coke/Pepsi in there who have had the same recipes for over 100 years

Yeah sorry. Crap comparison 🤣

[AFCBeer]

It’s a fair question but easily answered. 

Football Manager has the most demanding fan base in the world. Sure a competitor may occasionally emerge, but the motivation for SI is to give that fan base the product they demand rather than trying to outdo any potential rival. 

In fact I think FM is unique. If SI tried to compete with a rival it would result in a dumbed down product. For that reason I think competition is irrelevant, SI will make the best management game they can and that won’t change no matter how many rivals they face.

[warlock]

"Lack of "healthy competition" damaging FM development?"

No.

[forameuss]

This again...

Now first, I'll admit that I understand why people ask it.  After all, with the opaque and very black box that is software development - particularly FM - you don't have a window in, so you start to try and derive your own outcomes.  This "lack of competition" argument is one of them.  It fits at least one narrative, and it requires no real effort on the part of whoever's putting the argument forward.  No proof needed, just say that clearly they require competition to drive themselves forward and the job's a good 'un.

But it's also a completely misguided and flat out incorrect statement.  And more than that, I'd imagine it's quite insulting to the development team to say.  You're essentially saying that they're getting complacent and lazy.  Now, had they regressed to the point where they were purely releasing updated squads and not really touching any new features, then you'd probably have a point.  That's the very definition of being lazy.  But every single release there are a raft of new features being brought in to an already pretty congested feature set.  They're also putting features in with a view to them being fleshed out in future versions, so they're clearly already thinking 2 or 3 versions ahead.  It baffles me that anyone can look at that policy and then lazily (ironically) denounce them as being complacent and lazy themselves.  

There are many criticisms you can level at SI, but this has never been, and likely never will be, a valid one to use.  SI used to have competition.  They killed them stone dead, salted the Earth and pretty much made sure they would never return.  Go complain to the other developers about being lazy by not providing any competition if you really must assign blame.

[Britrock]

FM has never had real opposition, this idea that CM was any kind of competition until 2016 is false at best. No-one was buying CM after the companies split and went their separate ways, FM has always stood alone on it's own.

[bassistuk]

19 minutes ago, forameuss said:

This again...

Now first, I'll admit that I understand why people ask it.  After all, with the opaque and very black box that is software development - particularly FM - you don't have a window in, so you start to try and derive your own outcomes.  This "lack of competition" argument is one of them.  It fits at least one narrative, and it requires no real effort on the part of whoever's putting the argument forward.  No proof needed, just say that clearly they require competition to drive themselves forward and the job's a good 'un.

But it's also a completely misguided and flat out incorrect statement.  And more than that, I'd imagine it's quite insulting to the development team to say.  You're essentially saying that they're getting complacent and lazy.  Now, had they regressed to the point where they were purely releasing updated squads and not really touching any new features, then you'd probably have a point.  That's the very definition of being lazy.  But every single release there are a raft of new features being brought in to an already pretty congested feature set.  They're also putting features in with a view to them being fleshed out in future versions, so they're clearly already thinking 2 or 3 versions ahead.  It baffles me that anyone can look at that policy and then lazily (ironically) denounce them as being complacent and lazy themselves.  

There are many criticisms you can level at SI, but this has never been, and likely never will be, a valid one to use.  SI used to have competition.  They killed them stone dead, salted the Earth and pretty much made sure they would never return.  Go complain to the other developers about being lazy by not providing any competition if you really must assign blame.

Wow.... I don't know what made you think  I said SI was lazy? It was just an observant speculation. I respect everything SI is doing and has done. I'm just wondering what would happen to FM of there was a similar game on the market just as good. It's only a discussion... 

[forameuss]

Just now, bassistuk said:

Wow.... I don't know what made you think  I said SI was lazy? It was just an observant speculation. I respect everything SI is doing and has done. I'm just wondering what would happen to FM of there was a similar game on the market just as good. It's only a discussion... 

I didn't say you specifically said that, but it's been intimated in the past when this is brought up.  It was more a general comment on the subject, rather than anything directly targeted at you.

[Brentford Alan]

7 hours ago, Cougar2010 said:

 

I also love that you've added Coke/Pepsi in there who have had the same recipes for over 100 years

 

The FIFA/PES comparison doesn't work for me either. Both of those games, and admittedly I have more experience with FIFA, have stagnated since roughly the 2009 versions with PES improving a bit since then. FIFA is the exact same game with more emphasis on FUT and the financial benefits EA sees from it. Career mode gets an artificial make over every couple of years which is usually just a case of bringing back a feature removed previously. They still haven't fixed the stadium naming bug or hopeless scheduling (I had 4 games in a week the other day ffs!). No effort has been made to improve computer AI - it still uses the same crap handicaps from 09 to make the game seem more 'difficult' at World Class and Legendary such as players refusing to jump for headers and speed boosts for AI defenders, and that's with a new engine since 17 I believe? There's more but this isn't the thread for it Needless to say I won't be buying it again for a long, long time if ever.

 

Compare FM09 to FM18 in context to FIFA/PES 09 and FIFA/PES 18. Healthy competition can stagnate games possibly more than having no competition at all!

[Putzibram]

1 hour ago, bassistuk said:

 I'm just wondering what would happen to FM of there was a similar game on the market just as good. It's only a discussion... 

 

1 hour ago, forameuss said:

  SI used to have competition.  They killed them stone dead, salted the Earth and pretty much made sure they would never return.  Go complain to the other developers about being lazy by not providing any competition if you really must assign blame.

There is your answer and it takes only some introductory level economics to understand why. It's the same reason there is only 1 Facebook, 1 google, 1 AirBnB and so on. They are in a business with huge upfront so-called 'sunk' costs to be made before they can serve their first customer and then next to no marginal costs for every extra customer. The first company to offer a somewhat decent product takes all of the market and if there happen to be two (or more) companies in the market, one of them will be somewhat better/cheaper and this will be the one that pushes all competition out of the market.

Economic theory predicts that the survivor will then reap the monopolists profits: they can either (or both) push up the price and offer worse quality. But obviously real life is always a bit more complex. SI do face competition because we could all decide to play call of duty or FIFA. Or we could go watch some live football or read books or whatever. Best of all they have to compete against their past products: if they can't convince the fan base that FM2018 is really worth it, we could just go on play FM 2017. So SI have an incentive not to slacken off too much.

[treble_yell_:-)]

I'd imagine they work in the the new ME is a huge undertaking and has possibly impacted recent development of the game. 

I'm fine if that is the case as the new ME is going to impact the game for years to come.

[Zodiak]

2 hours ago, forameuss said:

Now, had they regressed to the point where they were purely releasing updated squads and not really touching any new features, then you'd probably have a point.  That's the very definition of being lazy.  But every single release there are a raft of new features being brought in to an already pretty congested feature set.  They're also putting features in with a view to them being fleshed out in future versions, so they're clearly already thinking 2 or 3 versions ahead.  It baffles me that anyone can look at that policy and then lazily (ironically) denounce them as being complacent and lazy themselves.  

 

I'm sorry, but please do not overestimate the complexity of some of the features being introduced. Not all of them require a gazillion man hours. Your argument works both ways: since most people know so little about software development, it is very easy to convince them that some "new" feature is sooooo complex and groundbreaking and is therefore worth every penny they pay, when in reality it took a couple of evenings and a cup of tea to complete. Just sayin'... FM is indeed a very complex beast but not everything SI does is gospel. Some of the stuff we see every year is just a repackage or a thin frontend on top of what already has been in the game for years. Don't let yourselves be fooled so easily. 

[TCSawyer]

I do agree with what your saying, however, ain't nobody ever going to do what SI do for this game and make it better or even close to what we have here.

[Schotsmannetje]

1 hour ago, Brentford Alan said:

 

The FIFA/PES comparison doesn't work for me either. Both of those games, and admittedly I have more experience with FIFA, have stagnated since roughly the 2009 versions with PES improving a bit since then. FIFA is the exact same game with more emphasis on FUT and the financial benefits EA sees from it. Career mode gets an artificial make over every couple of years which is usually just a case of bringing back a feature removed previously. They still haven't fixed the stadium naming bug or hopeless scheduling (I had 4 games in a week the other day ffs!). No effort has been made to improve computer AI - it still uses the same crap handicaps from 09 to make the game seem more 'difficult' at World Class and Legendary such as players refusing to jump for headers and speed boosts for AI defenders, and that's with a new engine since 17 I believe? There's more but this isn't the thread for it Needless to say I won't be buying it again for a long, long time if ever.

 

Compare FM09 to FM18 in context to FIFA/PES 09 and FIFA/PES 18. Healthy competition can stagnate games possibly more than having no competition at all!

Quoted for truth is the phrase I believe?

FIFA has been the same game under the hood for nearly ten years. And EA make a lot more money than SI do, and have a comparable competitor.

The same thing can be said about games such as Call of Duty, Battlefield, FarCry, and Assassin's Creed. Those games don't really change that much either, just the settings mostly. Maybe an extra online mode here and there.

Besides: game series that do go through enormous changes between different editions often receive enormous criticism from their fanbase. Take Civilization VI for example. A lot of Civ fans went back to playing Civ V out of spite and disappointment.

[Zodiak]

7 minutes ago, TCSawyer said:

I do agree with what your saying, however, ain't nobody ever going to do what SI do for this game and make it better or even close to what we have here.

Satisfaction is the death of desire :-)

Look, I'm not even being critical or anything. All I'm saying is we judge each action/feature on its own merit. If there's a feature that clearly took an enormous amount of effort AND is actually super fun - I'll be the first to applaud and tip my hat. But then, a customer/fan should not even have to care if something takes a line or a billion lines of code. All we care about is quality. And there's no need to think that everyone at SI is an angel. They follow a cold and calculated model, knowing perfectly well that you and me will buy the game, unless the world freezes or something. There are a lot of complex games out there, we just happen to be fans of football and management. Doesn't mean other devs at other studios work less.

I personally care mostly about the core experience and want to see improvements in this area. And I'd be hard-pressed at the moment to say that every year there's a clear sense of progress going on. Not really, no. 

[forameuss]

5 minutes ago, Zodiak said:

I'm sorry, but please do not overestimate the complexity of some of the features being introduced. Not all of them require a gazillion man hours. Your argument works both ways: since most people know so little about software development, it is very easy to convince them that some "new" feature is sooooo complex and groundbreaking and is therefore worth every penny they pay, when in reality it took a couple of evenings and a cup of tea to complete. Just sayin'... FM is indeed a very complex beast but not everything SI does is gospel. Some of the stuff we see every year is just a repackage or a thin frontend on top of what already has been in the game for years. Don't let yourselves be fooled so easily. 

You're right, you do seem to know so little about software development.

I didn't mention anything about the complexity of features, but given you're rallying on that point, I'll stand by it.  Whether a change is tiny or massive, when you're adding it into the game as a whole it will take considerable testing.  You can say that it takes "a couple of evenings and a cup of tea to complete" all you want, but that's so misguided it's almost funny.  Development changes might take 2 minutes to make, but far, far longer to be considered complete.

[Zodiak]

1 minute ago, forameuss said:

You're right, you do seem to know so little about software development.

I didn't mention anything about the complexity of features, but given you're rallying on that point, I'll stand by it.  Whether a change is tiny or massive, when you're adding it into the game as a whole it will take considerable testing.  You can say that it takes "a couple of evenings and a cup of tea to complete" all you want, but that's so misguided it's almost funny.  Development changes might take 2 minutes to make, but far, far longer to be considered complete.

So what - we should shell out 50 bucks every year just because the game is so huge that every tiny change that simply exposes an existing parameter to the UI takes ages to perfect? Whose problem is this anyway? Complexity of development is not a selling a point.

[forameuss]

1 minute ago, Zodiak said:

So what - we should shell out 50 bucks every year just because the game is so huge that every tiny change that simply exposes an existing parameter to the UI takes ages to perfect? Whose problem is this anyway? Complexity of development is not a selling a point.

...where did I ever say any of that?

You should "shell out" if you want to buy the game, not like they're forcing you to.  There's also a free demo.  If you don't believe the new version has improved enough, you don't buy it.  Like others have said, if you believe in this 2 year cycle, buy it every 2 years.

The only thing I've said on complexity is that it's unfair to act like SI stand still, which is something a lot people have wrongly levelled at them.  

[KUBI]

There is that many interaction between different parts (or modules) in the game, that even a small change or fix could have a side effect on another part of the game. 

[Smurf]

http://gmgames.org/section/football-soccer-management-games/

 

Many have tried - and failed. Championship Manager was the original - then split into Championship Manager and Football Manager. I don't think Championship Manager is still on the go, never really followed it.  But others have attempted - but there's just nothing as immersive as FM. 

But to say that the lack of development is stunted by lack of competitors is just wrong on so many levels. 

There have been competitors and year after year FM blows them out of the water. 

It would take something really special to rival FM. 

[Zodiak]

6 minutes ago, forameuss said:

...where did I ever say any of that?

You should "shell out" if you want to buy the game, not like they're forcing you to.  There's also a free demo.  If you don't believe the new version has improved enough, you don't buy it.  Like others have said, if you believe in this 2 year cycle, buy it every 2 years.

The only thing I've said on complexity is that it's unfair to act like SI stand still, which is something a lot people have wrongly levelled at them.  

It's also unfair to think that they're breaking their backs 24/7 every year to bring us the absolute best experience, judging from the nature of the features they highlight. There's also the fact that a lot of time/effort gets wasted on something that holds little value. This is all, of course, my opinion. 

Even if I'm wrong, an attitude of "how can we ever demand new features if every little thing is affected by every other little thing and it's almost impossible for SI to code" is ultimately counter-productive. They can stick some new half-baked UI screen onto each year's version and get away with it, because most people seem to hold the game's complexity so highly that they can't even imagine needing more. 

[forameuss]

2 minutes ago, Zodiak said:

It's also unfair to think that they're breaking their backs 24/7 every year to bring us the absolute best experience, judging from the nature of the features they highlight. There's also the fact that a lot of time/effort gets wasted on something that holds little value. This is all, of course, my opinion. 

Again, I didn't say any of that.  Anything else you'd like to pretend I've said?

There's a massive middle-ground between resting on their laurels and "breaking their backs 24/7".  They work hard creating the game they want to make, and whether there is competition or not, they'll continue to do that.  

[herne79]

15 minutes ago, Zodiak said:

It's also unfair to think that they're breaking their backs 24/7 every year to bring us the absolute best experience, judging from the nature of the features they highlight. There's also the fact that a lot of time/effort gets wasted on something that holds little value. This is all, of course, my opinion. 

Even if I'm wrong, an attitude of "how can we ever demand new features if every little thing is affected by every other little thing and it's almost impossible for SI to code" is ultimately counter-productive. They can stick some new half-baked UI screen onto each year's version and get away with it, because most people seem to hold the game's complexity so highly that they can't even imagine needing more. 

This and other comments of yours above are walking a very fine line between discussion and being offensive towards the SI developers (which is against house rules).

Dial it back please.

[MrPompey]

3 hours ago, Britrock said:

FM has never had real opposition, this idea that CM was any kind of competition until 2016 is false at best. No-one was buying CM after the companies split and went their separate ways, FM has always stood alone on it's own.

The game started as CM and was produced / published by Domark but developed by SI starting I think in 1992 (I think it was just the Collyer brothers in thise days). At some point Eidos became the publlsher. I recall in or around 2003 they split with Eidos, Eidos kep the CM name, SI kept the database and renamed the game FM and obtained a new publisher SEGA. CM and FM ran in parallel for a while but FM as you would expect was the better product and so out grew and outsold Eido's CM

[Zodiak]

5 minutes ago, herne79 said:

This and other comments of yours above are walking a very fine line between discussion and being offensive towards the SI developers (which is against house rules).

Dial it back please.

This is your reaction to a discussion? Shutting people up? Good job. Let's all just pretend it's all rosy and dandy then. I suggest you ban all threads and posters questioning the sanctity of the powers that be. Will make your job easier. Seriously, what's the point of having a forum about future development if every possible argument gets shut down by the fact that the game is complex, the devs are working hard and any feature, whatever it is or no matter how good or bad, is a godsend simply by virtue of making its way into the final version through all the code and all the testing. If you objectively consider pretty much every similar discussion, it always eventually boils down to this. That we can't ask for much because every little thing is already so taxing on the dev team. Do you honestly see a way forward with such views? 

[TCSawyer]

45 minutes ago, Zodiak said:

Satisfaction is the death of desire :-)

Look, I'm not even being critical or anything. All I'm saying is we judge each action/feature on its own merit. If there's a feature that clearly took an enormous amount of effort AND is actually super fun - I'll be the first to applaud and tip my hat. But then, a customer/fan should not even have to care if something takes a line or a billion lines of code. All we care about is quality. And there's no need to think that everyone at SI is an angel. They follow a cold and calculated model, knowing perfectly well that you and me will buy the game, unless the world freezes or something. There are a lot of complex games out there, we just happen to be fans of football and management. Doesn't mean other devs at other studios work less.

I personally care mostly about the core experience and want to see improvements in this area. And I'd be hard-pressed at the moment to say that every year there's a clear sense of progress going on. Not really, no. 

Haha very nice quote there my friend

I am in love with this game, FM18 is absolutely fantastic. I love everything about it, reading these forums and learning new things, getting tips and tapping into the features I didn't used to use is making it far more enjoyable. You can just ignore the one's you don't like and concentrate on the one's you do. I am 3 seasons deep with Inter Milan and have a champions league final coming up.. I am tempted to grab a beer from the fridge (it's 11.20am) just to watch it!!!! 

[MrPompey]

2 minutes ago, Zodiak said:

This is your reaction to a discussion? Shutting people up? Good job. Let's all just pretend it's all rosy and dandy then. I suggest you ban all threads and posters questioning the sanctity of the powers that be. Will make your job easier. Seriously, what's the point of having a forum about future development if every possible argument gets shut down by the fact that the game is complex, the devs are working hard and any feature, whatever it is or no matter how good or bad, is a godsend simply by virtue of making its way into the final version through all the code and all the testing. If you objectively consider pretty much every similar discussion, it always eventually boils down to this. That we can't ask for much because every little thing is already so taxing on the dev team. Do you honestly see a way forward with such views? 

I don't think there is an issue with open discussion or challenge, I think the issue is with how you present it. Thats the same for any discussion in any thread.

If its presented well then it will get listened to. If it becomes a rant then people will just ignore it and a potential valid point gets lost. Its up to you to chose how you present a point but be aware its the presentation of it that determines if it gets shut down, not necessarily the point itself

 

[Smurf]

10 minutes ago, Zodiak said:

This is your reaction to a discussion? Shutting people up? Good job. Let's all just pretend it's all rosy and dandy then. I suggest you ban all threads and posters questioning the sanctity of the powers that be. Will make your job easier. Seriously, what's the point of having a forum about future development if every possible argument gets shut down by the fact that the game is complex, the devs are working hard and any feature, whatever it is or no matter how good or bad, is a godsend simply by virtue of making its way into the final version through all the code and all the testing. If you objectively consider pretty much every similar discussion, it always eventually boils down to this. That we can't ask for much because every little thing is already so taxing on the dev team. Do you honestly see a way forward with such views? 

There's a feedback area of the forums for you to vent your frustrations in a clear and logical manner. However, ranting about things is likely to be looked over with a glancing eye roll. 

Logically mark out where you see where improvements can be made in the feedback threads - and they do definitely listen! As I've had a few things implemented myself.

A flag for offside (instead of a whistle) - and News Conferences for new signings - and there are a few other small things.

A major item I brought up before was how easy it was to sign players on the 48 month payment scheme, you could do it for every single player, meaning with a budget of 50m you could buy an entire team made up of 50m players spread out over 48 months.

That's gone now - which is a good thing.

 

Make your case logically and people do listen.

 

 

[Zodiak]

Before I'm banned, I'll try to paraphrase my point: you will never see me complaining about bugs because bugs definitely are extremely hard to iron out in a product this huge, and are a necessary evil in a way. But I am calling for a more decisive outlook on development in order to break free from the shackles. I am calling for brave new features that - yes - might break something temporarily in the process but would ultimately allow for a better game. As of now, it seems SI are too conscious of a possible outcry due to bugs, which is, as I've been trying to say, a dead end. That's what I'm trying to say: we as a community need to be more willing to accept short-term inconveniences in order to ultimately get a much more progressive version of our favorite game. Unfortunately, the backlash I'm receiving here suggests many people are not ready, holding dearly to the thought that major features are nearly impossible to implement because bugs will happen (and everyone focuses too hard on them and complains), so we should be content with incremental updates. This attitude is obviously easier on SI because it buys them a lot of time. I personally am ready to pay the full price for a version that might be buggy but that brings exciting new core functionality.

[enigmatic]

The obvious counter argument to lack of healthy competition is what actually happened when there was loads of it.

Premier Manager did loads of innovative things in the 1990s, from gimmicks like arranging hoarding sponsorship to a full-blown 3D match engine, as well as console versions.

SI kept on doing exactly the same thing well, on the basis that Championship Manager sold very well, produced a far more complex simulation of players and transfers, they didn't want gimmicks and weren't interested in a 3D match engine until they could accurately represent a full match (which Premier Manager definitely didn't do, even though it looked pretty). The CM3 series released after Premier Manager 97 was in terms of gameplay a marginal upgrade on CM2 (new interface, some new attributes, WIBL/WOBL tactical options) with no match engine, no stadium designs, no sponsorships and no console version. And people loved it. And CM4 was a far more innovative game than Football Manager 2005, even though it was the latter released when they'd lost a brand and gained a competitor with their old name...

Completely ignoring the competition worked very well for them in the past, so I don't imagine it changing them in future.

I think the most meaningful consequence of "healthy competition" might actually be SI losing licenses to a few more teams/leagues. That happened before too...

[forameuss]

20 minutes ago, Zodiak said:

Unfortunately, the backlash I'm receiving here suggests many people are not ready, holding dearly to the thought that major features are nearly impossible to implement because bugs will happen (and everyone focuses too hard on them and complains), so we should be content with incremental updates.

You do realise you completely invented this point in one of your posts, right?  

[herne79]

1 hour ago, Zodiak said:

This is your reaction to a discussion? Shutting people up? Good job. Let's all just pretend it's all rosy and dandy then. I suggest you ban all threads and posters questioning the sanctity of the powers that be. Will make your job easier. Seriously, what's the point of having a forum about future development if every possible argument gets shut down by the fact that the game is complex, the devs are working hard and any feature, whatever it is or no matter how good or bad, is a godsend simply by virtue of making its way into the final version through all the code and all the testing. If you objectively consider pretty much every similar discussion, it always eventually boils down to this. That we can't ask for much because every little thing is already so taxing on the dev team. Do you honestly see a way forward with such views? 

No.

You can discuss or even and vent your frustrations if that's what you want to do, but as soon as you cross the line into being rude by questioning people's commitment and effort is when you'll get a reaction.  Which is what you've been doing:

2 hours ago, Zodiak said:

when in reality it took a couple of evenings and a cup of tea to complete.

 

2 hours ago, Zodiak said:

It's also unfair to think that they're breaking their backs 24/7 every year to bring us the absolute best experience, judging from the nature of the features they highlight.

 

2 hours ago, Zodiak said:

There's also the fact that a lot of time/effort gets wasted on something that holds little value.

 

2 hours ago, Zodiak said:

This is all, of course, my opinion. 

It might well be your opinion, but when that opinion becomes rude you cross a line.

For the second (and final) time, dial it back.

[BigRoboCrouch]

To answer the thread title, yes, obviously. Anyone who has studied basic economics knows that customers benefit from competition, and that competition boosts technical and technological progress.

Why do you think each and every EU country (and EU itself aswell) has a government authority dedicated to protecting competition in all markets?

[MrPompey]

2 hours ago, Zodiak said:

Before I'm banned, I'll try to paraphrase my point: you will never see me complaining about bugs because bugs definitely are extremely hard to iron out in a product this huge, and are a necessary evil in a way. But I am calling for a more decisive outlook on development in order to break free from the shackles. I am calling for brave new features that - yes - might break something temporarily in the process but would ultimately allow for a better game. As of now, it seems SI are too conscious of a possible outcry due to bugs, which is, as I've been trying to say, a dead end. That's what I'm trying to say: we as a community need to be more willing to accept short-term inconveniences in order to ultimately get a much more progressive version of our favorite game. Unfortunately, the backlash I'm receiving here suggests many people are not ready, holding dearly to the thought that major features are nearly impossible to implement because bugs will happen (and everyone focuses too hard on them and complains), so we should be content with incremental updates. This attitude is obviously easier on SI because it buys them a lot of time. I personally am ready to pay the full price for a version that might be buggy but that brings exciting new core functionality.

I work in the IT industry so I know how this all works very well. I think your problem is that you have:

i) minimal understanding of how the IT process works

ii) no understanding that a new product version makes or breaks you

iii) With a product this popular, so highly rated and this far evolved its evolution rather than revolution for change else you risk destroying what everyone loves

iv) all software companies have a limitation of resources of some kind which also limit how much can be done in each annual iteration of the product

iv) That you are not the only consumer of this product, there are about 1 million who buy this every year

v) there is a features enhancement thread that you can post it in

vi) In this forum and in life in general you will get a better response if you approach and convey things in a well mannered, logical and respectful way. You can still present a negative viewpoint in this way

vii)  My personal view is what is the point of exciting new core functonality if it doesn't work or is full of bugs? In the software industry how many software houses have faled / ruined their reputation for releasing poor quality products

viii) you say "we as a community" your posts are all about  yourself

ix) I disagree that anyone thinks that major features are nearly impossible to implement. Have you actually played this years version and experienced any of the major new features in this year's release

Apologies if I sound hash but I think you may need to think a little about what you are saying. perhaps there are some really good views that just need to be presented better. However remember your view will not always be shared or agreed with

[Schotsmannetje]

1 hour ago, BigRoboCrouch said:

To answer the thread title, yes, obviously. Anyone who has studied basic economics knows that customers benefit from competition, and that competition boosts technical and technological progress.

Why do you think each and every EU country (and EU itself aswell) has a government authority dedicated to protecting competition in all markets?

There is a lot of scientific research that argues almost the opposite: that more innovation and progress is made when companies operating on the same market cooperate rather than compete. That's why companies operating in the same industry often tend to cluster: so that they can share suppliers, services, costs, and even technologies and information, often without even realizing it. Too much competition can lead to less innovation, and lower profits.

I also know from personal experience that having too many competitors on the same market often leads to illegal cartels, illegal price agreements, and fraud. The real world economy is never as easy as the economy classes at school tought us. It's not just a matter of: more competition more better.

[bassistuk]

Sorry if this post has angered some. That was not my intention. I only wanted people to give their opinion about my observation. Maybe I am just being naive. I'm a software developer aswell. What I do may not be as complex as making games but I know first hand how difficult it is to program something so deep like FM. I know how it feels when a rival company releases something that is better than yours. I take that as an inspiration. The reason others have failed where FM has shone is the community. The loyal fans since the real  CM days. Just know that I am a big fan of SI  and whatever happens I'll continue to buy FM and SI can take my money gladly. 

[Wavelberry]

I think there is something to be said about the power of competition to push development and innovation and in a hypothetical world where there were competitors at the level that FM is now I could understand the argument although I think it's overstated slightly by those who believe purely in the power of market forces but then I'm a dirty lefty.

Where we are now though some half-arsed competitor ain't going make much of a difference and it's not like SI are phoning it in and taking the money as innovation is consistent, they engage with the community and they strive to fix bugs. If they didn't and the product tanked in quality eventually people would vote with their feet and just not buy it.

The way I see it is that SI and FM are the only gig in town so all our hopes and dreams are with them so the standard they are held to is actually much higher. We expect more and NEED more because we can't go elsewhere and I think that drives a lot of the criticism they get in a way as they need to please EVERY football management fan. I stand by the fact though that if the game were awful then enough people would ditch coz it ain't worth it. Cricket gaming went through this in the 2000s and there was competition between EA and Codemasters eventually the games were awful so only those desperate to play played. 

It's a balancing act though because it's easy to get cynical and say that SI know that they're the only gig in town so they can rest on their laurels. It's a fair point to make but it's not something I see.

 

tl;dr (or too rambling)

It's fair to say that having a monopoly can easily lead to laziness but it's not a fair charge to level at SI who have consistently innovated and raised their own bar and the standards we judge them by are much higher than usual because all our Football Management dreams can only be fulfilled by them.

This doesn't mean the situation is not subject to change, but at the moment? Not a fair charge to make.

[enigmatic]

9 hours ago, BigRoboCrouch said:

To answer the thread title, yes, obviously. Anyone who has studied basic economics knows that customers benefit from competition, and that competition boosts technical and technological progress.

Why do you think each and every EU country (and EU itself aswell) has a government authority dedicated to protecting competition in all markets?

As somebody that has studied non-basic economics, I know that this is simplistic beyond belief, with the main effect of competition being to make companies more sensitive about their margins. Whether the reaction is lower prices, companies trying to make something dramatically different to the rest of the sector or companies cutting corners and firing staff depends very much on the sector. In the case of competition in the football management simulation sector, it drove down revenues so much that the competitors couldn't afford to keep creating new games, so they stopped.

More to the point, anybody that has played FM when it had a lot of competition realises that SI pointedly ignored what the competitors were doing anyway, and made most of their major changes in between periods of serious competition

[scass]

18 hours ago, forameuss said:

 

 And more than that, I'd imagine it's quite insulting to the development team to say.  

I absolutely take your overall point about why FM is last man standing, but this is the sort of comment that kills discussion. If the development team don't want to hear criticism they shouldn't have a forum. I work in a competitive business, and it is essential to be aware of your competition, and to identify where if you can't be first you can best, or vice versa. if you can't listen to the criticism in a creative industry, you should find another job.

 

I think dynamics looks over-hyped, and overstressed in the game, personally. I'd have preferred a match engine that doesn't look like Pro-evo eight years ago, and isn't interrupted by endless offsides and highlights screens at points when something looks like developing. I think the addition of dynamics might well turn out to be an example of something which was a good idea in isolation, because no-one was pushing them from the outside.

 

That's just a personal opinion, and not meant to be insulting to anyone.

[forameuss]

6 hours ago, scass said:

I absolutely take your overall point about why FM is last man standing, but this is the sort of comment that kills discussion. If the development team don't want to hear criticism they shouldn't have a forum.

...you can criticise the development team without insulting them.  They're hardly the same thing.

[DarkSleeper]

On ‎22‎-‎11‎-‎2017 at 02:09, Cougar2010 said:

Do you work harder/better in your job because of competitors in your industry?

 

Yea, definitely! I work in logistics where we have a contract with a major firm to provide services. Thats on a contract that will get looked at every 3 years and will get extended yes or no. We have tons of competition so it's my and my colleagues job and duty to be as perfect as possible to see that contract extended, because there are 5 firms ready to take our place.

That being said, I believe having (healthy) competition will only strive to make u better. U might even learn alot from ur 'rivals', either good or bad...

And I have been happy with the way SI as been going with FM but it can Always be better. And with some competition u might reach ur full potential faster.

[scass]

1 hour ago, forameuss said:

...you can criticise the development team without insulting them.  They're hardly the same thing.

Well, actually, if you weren't so intent on defending professionals who are paid to do a job, we might actually get to talk about the topic.  We've paid money for this game, and it's not a cheapie. We're entitled to have an opinion. We're customers, not mates commenting on a college project.

[forameuss]

1 minute ago, scass said:

Well, actually, if you weren't so intent on defending professionals who are paid to do a job, we might actually get to talk about the topic.  We've paid money for this game, and it's not a cheapie. We're entitled to have an opinion. We're customers, not mates commenting on a college project.

And I'll say it again, because you clearly didn't understand what I said.  Criticism is fine, in fact it's better than fine, it's how they see what needs to be improved from the customer's eyes.  Calling them lazy/complacent or insulting them in any other way isn't so good, and it's one of the main reasons why the developers no longer actively participate on the forums.  

[Maaka]

4 minutes ago, scass said:

Well, actually, if you weren't so intent on defending professionals who are paid to do a job, we might actually get to talk about the topic.  We've paid money for this game, and it's not a cheapie. We're entitled to have an opinion. We're customers, not mates commenting on a college project.

Where and when have anyone stopped anyone from talk about it? 
 

[Svenc]

1 hour ago, DarkSleeper said:

Yea, definitely! I work in logistics where we have a contract with a major firm to provide services. Thats on a contract that will get looked at every 3 years and will get extended yes or no. We have tons of competition so it's my and my colleagues job and duty to be as perfect as possible to see that contract extended, because there are 5 firms ready to take our place.

That being said, I believe having (healthy) competition will only strive to make u better. U might even learn alot from ur 'rivals', either good or bad...

And I have been happy with the way SI as been going with FM but it can Always be better. And with some competition u might reach ur full potential faster.

The counter argument to this is this:

This game is releazing into a niche genre. It is a sizeable  niche , as it happens to be based on the most popular sports in the world (ridiulously popular, in fact), but still a niche. One of the reasons that SI are the only guys on the block thus (if you discount all the causal freebie mobile/MMO stuff) is that this thing never supported hugely much competition in the first place, at least on a significant scale. Back in the 90s, there were all kinds of management games no less as even the Collyers could code a competitive programm all in their bedroom, more or less. That's changed significantly. Ask guys such as Gerald Köhler, former chief behind the On The Ball series, once about as big a thing in Germany as Champ Man used to be in the UK. He will tell you this requires significant amount of investment -- and in between the lines -- for comparably limited gain. This is football alright, but it's never going to be close to be Fifa. Thus German market, traditionally the 2nd biggest world-wide for this kind of game, has been dormant for half a decade now, until this time next year anyway, when FM 2019 will be released there. That is outside of games such as Torchance / Club Manager, which deliberately harken back to the 90s as that's all you can realistically do on limited budget and team size, and which won't ever push any boundaries, be any direct "competition".

I think it's a sad state of affairs insofar as back then there was plenty room also for quirky ideas (On The Ball World Cup Edition simulating the day to day 24h schedules of an international manager during World Cup duty -- even the last Champ Man game incorporating some interesting concepts such as the drills or set piece editors, sadly exploitable to hell and back). However FM/SI I view different. There's evidence they picked up some of the talent that used to work on games such as Total Club Manager, Champ Man (Beautiful Game Studios), Eastside Hockey, and similar, guys that would be else lost on the management world, perhaps developing casual mobile games instead. HOwever there's also rampant evidence in the subsequent closure/cancellation of a dozen of series that this market doesn't support much competition on a scale of program FM has become -- and any significant reduction in revenue would harm develepment, rather. The guys behind TCM/ Fifa Manager used to argue similar despeite their long-runnong "monopoly" on the German markets -- and they know what they're talking about, as their parent company wanted to can that series in 2005ish already.

[Britrock]

On 11/22/2017 at 11:19, MrPompey said:

The game started as CM and was produced / published by Domark but developed by SI starting I think in 1992 (I think it was just the Collyer brothers in thise days). At some point Eidos became the publlsher. I recall in or around 2003 they split with Eidos, Eidos kep the CM name, SI kept the database and renamed the game FM and obtained a new publisher SEGA. CM and FM ran in parallel for a while but FM as you would expect was the better product and so out grew and outsold Eido's CM

Yeah, I played CM01/02 back in the day but once they split and SI took the code and made FM while Eidos took the name and made CM, it was never a competition. 

[scass]

1 hour ago, Maaka said:

Where and when have anyone stopped anyone from talk about it? 
 

I think it would be more constructive if people talked specifics instead of generalities. Sorry of that wasn't clear.

[scass]

1 hour ago, forameuss said:

And I'll say it again, because you clearly didn't understand what I said.  Criticism is fine, in fact it's better than fine, it's how they see what needs to be improved from the customer's eyes.  Calling them lazy/complacent or insulting them in any other way isn't so good, and it's one of the main reasons why the developers no longer actively participate on the forums.  

I understood it perfectly. There's no need to be patronising.