Jump to content

Recommended Posts

    I am in love with Football Manager series. However, in latest years I have kinde bored because the match engine is so hilarious. The movement of players, their decision, their models and all the stuff that we see in the match is incredibly bad.
 
    For example; Their forwards on route to attack and then one of my defender decided to run accross the other field. I did not give order to mark anybody and did not any other instructions. It is just annoying and funny. Another example; As we all know one of the best player in the world is running through goal box and shooting into side nets instead of... you know...
 
    I mean this game is not classic ****** game like other games in the market. As I said, this game is tradition and it makes me sad to see this much ABSOLUTE HORRIBLE match engine. I was pre-buying this game with my whole 10-12 squad of cousins and friends but only I left. Now I also quit and bored of this silliness. I wont buy and wont return unless you do some work.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, considering that FM20 was the FM of nerfed crossing ("I can't attempt a cross unless I'm being closed down, otherwise it's just unfair"), FM21 will be the FM of overpowered crossing until they nerf it in the winter patch.

 

So yeah, there's continuity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/10/2020 at 20:41, kutlubey said:
    I am in love with Football Manager series. However, in latest years I have kinde bored because the match engine is so hilarious. The movement of players, their decision, their models and all the stuff that we see in the match is incredibly bad.
 
    For example; Their forwards on route to attack and then one of my defender decided to run accross the other field. I did not give order to mark anybody and did not any other instructions. It is just annoying and funny. Another example; As we all know one of the best player in the world is running through goal box and shooting into side nets instead of... you know...
 
    I mean this game is not classic ****** game like other games in the market. As I said, this game is tradition and it makes me sad to see this much ABSOLUTE HORRIBLE match engine. I was pre-buying this game with my whole 10-12 squad of cousins and friends but only I left. Now I also quit and bored of this silliness. I wont buy and wont return unless you do some work.

Clearly you, like all users, are entitled to your opinion but frankly some of your statements are hard to take seriously.

The ME is hilarious and that is intentional and by design?.  You know what SEGA's plans for the ME are despite SEGA having nothing to do with it as they are the distributors?  Somebody is up to charlatanry?  ( I did have to look at up and it is disrespectful ).  The whole community has been crying for a new ME for 10 years?  Fairly sure that there has been a complete ME revamp in that time.

Nobody on here has ever said the ME is perfect and of course there will always be areas where it can be improved, but it is being worked on continually and to state that it is stagnant is just wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's just so much wrong with the original post.  Like...so much.  Could go into it, but the previous post pretty much explains it.  I know this might blow some people's minds, but the match engine is actually quite difficult to get right.  SI can both have full intentions to make the perfect match engine, and still come up short through little fault of their own beyond the difficulty.

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Dbuk1 said:

The day we see the game with high minimum specs will be music to my ears. If players love the series they will follow.

Nope. No they won’t. For a lot of people it’s the only game they play, or at least on PC, people aren’t gonna buy high spec machines just to play fm. To suggest otherwise is, at best, far fetched.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gunner86 said:

Nope. No they won’t. For a lot of people it’s the only game they play, or at least on PC, people aren’t gonna buy high spec machines just to play fm. To suggest otherwise is, at best, far fetched.

Not everyone plays the game on a toaster. You either keep up or get left behind. It’s 2020 and the graphics/match engine they produce is beyond woeful. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, akm.91 said:

Not everyone plays the game on a toaster. You either keep up or get left behind. It’s 2020 and the graphics/match engine they produce is beyond woeful. 

So you want thousands of people to have to pay out £500+ to keep playing a game that they’ve loved for -in some cases - decades, just so the game is good enough for you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, gunner86 said:

So you want thousands of people to have to pay out £500+ to keep playing a game that they’ve loved for -in some cases - decades, just so the game is good enough for you?

And you want thousands of people to be left behind because you insist the game must be playable on a toaster? There should be an option to turn all graphics off if that’s what floats your boat, but don’t hold the game back because of it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, akm.91 said:

And you want thousands of people to be left behind because you insist the game must be playable on a toaster? There should be an option to turn all graphics off if that’s what floats your boat, but don’t hold the game back because of it. 

They’ve got to find the right balance, and from a business point of view it makes more sense to allow as many people as possible to play the game. 
I don’t disagree that things can be better, I don’t disagree that things probably should be better at this point, but they will want to hang on to as many customers as they can for as long as they can.

There is nothing preventing players on high spec machines from playing the game except themselves being unhappy with the product, but if you ramp up the minimum specs, that will prevent a number of people on low spec machines from playing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, akm.91 said:

Not everyone plays the game on a toaster. You either keep up or get left behind. It’s 2020 and the graphics/match engine they produce is beyond woeful. 

Because leaving a third of your audience behind is a superb idea that won't just result in them not buying the game anymore :thup:

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, akm.91 said:

Not everyone plays the game on a toaster. You either keep up or get left behind. It’s 2020 and the graphics/match engine they produce is beyond woeful. 

You and everyone else literally forgets that only one party knows EXACTLY what the majority of people play on.  Can you guess where they are?  I'll give you the clue, it's not you.

Edited by forameuss
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/10/2020 at 21:54, Prej said:

Well, considering that FM20 was the FM of nerfed crossing ("I can't attempt a cross unless I'm being closed down, otherwise it's just unfair"), FM21 will be the FM of overpowered crossing until they nerf it in the winter patch.

 

So yeah, there's continuity.

How can you say that as if it's a true quote? You need to add things like "this is my opinion" or simply "I think".

It's not actually a trend that crossing gets easier to tougher with each iteration of the game. Crossing has been one of my FM bugbears for a number of years.

Not to mention no one has seen FM20 in action.

Maybe you are being tongue in cheek.

As for the original post:

On 17/10/2020 at 20:41, kutlubey said:
    I am in love with Football Manager series. However, in latest years I have kinde bored because the match engine is so hilarious. The movement of players, their decision, their models and all the stuff that we see in the match is incredibly bad.
 
    For example; Their forwards on route to attack and then one of my defender decided to run accross the other field. I did not give order to mark anybody and did not any other instructions. It is just annoying and funny. Another example; As we all know one of the best player in the world is running through goal box and shooting into side nets instead of... you know...
 
    I mean this game is not classic ****** game like other games in the market. As I said, this game is tradition and it makes me sad to see this much ABSOLUTE HORRIBLE match engine. I was pre-buying this game with my whole 10-12 squad of cousins and friends but only I left. Now I also quit and bored of this silliness. I wont buy and wont return unless you do some work.

Everyone is welcome to an opinion, but this isn't constructive in any way. It is rude. "Intentionally bad", "absolutely horrible"? As I suggested above, I have bugbears with FM, but I am realistic and respectful enough to understand the effort that is needed to make this game. The OP obviously does not.

He doesn't even seem to realise that Sega do not make this game. They publish it. If, as is suggested, the OP has played the game for years (it's a common line that must be used before a poster can launch in to a tirade against the developers) then I think they might have realised SI make the game. It even says so at the top of this page.

Then to finish off with "I won't buy and won't return unless you do some work", well, bye, and don't slam the door on the way out. Sorry to be like that, but posts like this don't really deserve respect, do they?

Is it a generational thing?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The players playing on low spec laptops etc have nothing to fear. The game should only be played on 2D currently because 3D is a complete failure. To have the option to have a massive improvement on a better pc spec should be made. When the players watch the new visuals and see it come to life........they will follow. By the way you don’t need to spend 500 pound etc. A basic graphics card would make what we currently have look like SKY BLOODY SPORTS 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, anagain said:

Maybe you are being tongue in cheek.

It's 50% frustration and 50% just having a laugh. I mean, once the beta is out, the forum will surely be ablaze with posts on crossing and/or through balls being nerfed or overpowered, it's almost a running joke.

Still, don't get me wrong, I'm looking forward to it, as each year.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Prej said:

It's 50% frustration and 50% just having a laugh. I mean, once the beta is out, the forum will surely be ablaze with posts on crossing and/or through balls being nerfed or overpowered, it's almost a running joke.

Still, don't get me wrong, I'm looking forward to it, as each year.

Oh yeah, it is going to be interesting to see what this year's winner is for grievance.

What word or term will be most used in complaints. CCC? Finishing? Crossing? Tackling? Etc etc.

Of course, if they're constructive then feedback is great.

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Dbuk1 said:

The players playing on low spec laptops etc have nothing to fear. The game should only be played on 2D currently because 3D is a complete failure. To have the option to have a massive improvement on a better pc spec should be made. When the players watch the new visuals and see it come to life........they will follow. By the way you don’t need to spend 500 pound etc. A basic graphics card would make what we currently have look like SKY BLOODY SPORTS 

Right. But when you talk about ‘high minimum specs’ that implies more than just graphics card. 
And even then, not everyone knows how to replace one, or what they’d need to be looking for. The £500 I said was for people that would need to replace their PCs. And frankly, when we’re talking that level of investment just for better graphics, it’s not going to happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 ore fa, gunner86 ha scritto:

So you want thousands of people to have to pay out £500+ to keep playing a game that they’ve loved for -in some cases - decades, just so the game is good enough for you?

you can literally buy newgen xbox for 25$ and pay monthly till it is paid out. you get new gen console, ssd, controler, OS AND gamepass with tons of free games. why would anyone in his right mind use a 10 yrs old laptop that needs 10 mins to boot up in 2020???

what SI is doing, they are literally holding back the game in the last century. or they simply don't want to deal with moving the game in time which we live in. either because they don't have time/resources or the current 3d engine was a step in wrong direction that, with time, it proved to be too dificult to mantain. in that case, they made a wrong decision some time ago and they have to live with it.

either way, they could keep low settings while still improving the high settings. currently, graphiically one of the most demanding games i.e. MFS2020 has low settings that, if you use them, the game looks like it was made in 1985, but it is scalable. virtually all PC games have scalable graphics settings since the beginning of descrete GPUs. So, what SI is doing in that regard is, in my opinion, completely unjustifieble however you look at it.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, MBarbaric said:

either way, they could keep low settings while still improving the high settings. currently, graphiically one of the most demanding games i.e. MFS2020 has low settings that, if you use them, the game looks like it was made in 1985, but it is scalable. virtually all PC games have scalable graphics settings since the beginning of descrete GPUs. So, what SI is doing in that regard is, in my opinion, completely unjustifieble however you look at it.

 

 

  1. Player movement.
  2. Animations showing individual skill differences between players. 
  3. Atmosphere.

currently the game does not have:

1 different way of running with and without the ball , directional touch ,

no system of contact , there is not center of gravity , 

no physical language when players are tired

there is not center of gravity

Differant skills and tricks , which is a big problem because dribbling is important in this sport !

Atmosphere 

(plastic fan 2d ),supporters , fans , in stadiums not in 3D , no fumigène no tifo , 

lack of collection asset for stadium , irrealistic stadium , there is nothing differant between small match and big ,

cartoon textures , repetive generic stadium , no cutscene , no Intro 

I dont thinks we will have this in the game one day because a i dont thinks a 2003 Proccessor can Handle it ( These are the Football Manager 2021 system requirements (minimumCPU:AMD Athlon 64 FX-51. 

This is what I kill myself to say 

the game has such great potential but they have to move forward

everything that is outside of the ME is of good quality but the Graphic Quality of the ME is not their strong point that's why I suggested that 'he works with Nvidia that could bring him a very good publicity as much for Nvidia and they are competant

which could promote these products in the FM niche and that Nvidia could bring a lot of visibility by relaying the results of a potential RTX mod in these social media 

This would increase the quality of content from content creators ▶ More promotion of the game

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, MBarbaric said:

you can literally buy newgen xbox for 25$ and pay monthly till it is paid out. you get new gen console, ssd, controler, OS AND gamepass with tons of free games. why would anyone in his right mind use a 10 yrs old laptop that needs 10 mins to boot up in 2020???

what SI is doing, they are literally holding back the game in the last century. or they simply don't want to deal with moving the game in time which we live in. either because they don't have time/resources or the current 3d engine was a step in wrong direction that, with time, it proved to be too dificult to mantain. in that case, they made a wrong decision some time ago and they have to live with it.

either way, they could keep low settings while still improving the high settings. currently, graphiically one of the most demanding games i.e. MFS2020 has low settings that, if you use them, the game looks like it was made in 1985, but it is scalable. virtually all PC games have scalable graphics settings since the beginning of descrete GPUs. So, what SI is doing in that regard is, in my opinion, completely unjustifieble however you look at it.

 

£500 is £500, whether you pay it monthly or in one lump sum it’s still a lot of money for some people. Secondly, the Xbox version of the game is not the same as the full version of the game on PC, and yes you can play all the games on game pass, but that’s only helpful/value for money if you want them! 
And the people in their “right mind using a 10 year old machine” may not be able to afford anything else.
The point I made about buying a whole new machine was around raising specs of the whole game not just graphics.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minuto fa, gunner86 ha scritto:

£500 is £500, whether you pay it monthly or in one lump sum it’s still a lot of money for some people. Secondly, the Xbox version of the game is not the same as the full version of the game on PC, and yes you can play all the games on game pass, but that’s only helpful/value for money if you want them! 
And the people in their “right mind using a 10 year old machine” may not be able to afford anything else.
The point I made about buying a whole new machine was around raising specs of the whole game not just graphics.

you have valid points there. but if everyone thought like that the whole time we would still be hanging off the trees. there will have to be a cut-off point which is on SI to determine when and how. we can only sit, wait and (optionally) complain.

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, MBarbaric said:

you can literally buy newgen xbox for 25$ and pay monthly till it is paid out. you get new gen console, ssd, controler, OS AND gamepass with tons of free games. why would anyone in his right mind use a 10 yrs old laptop that needs 10 mins to boot up in 2020???

what SI is doing, they are literally holding back the game in the last century. or they simply don't want to deal with moving the game in time which we live in. either because they don't have time/resources or the current 3d engine was a step in wrong direction that, with time, it proved to be too dificult to mantain. in that case, they made a wrong decision some time ago and they have to live with it.

either way, they could keep low settings while still improving the high settings. currently, graphiically one of the most demanding games i.e. MFS2020 has low settings that, if you use them, the game looks like it was made in 1985, but it is scalable. virtually all PC games have scalable graphics settings since the beginning of descrete GPUs. So, what SI is doing in that regard is, in my opinion, completely unjustifieble however you look at it.

 

You jump to a lot of conclusions there about what SI's plans are with the match engine.

So, do you want the best graphical settings to make FM look like FIFA whilst the low settings keep it as it is? The graphics on MFS aren't really quite as drastic as the screenshot from that video made them out to be. That was a zoomed out plane. I'd be very surprised if MFS fans play like that. Besides, comparing FM and MFS is like comparing oranges with apples.

I've always held the belief that FM doesn't need to feature next gen graphics. Playing with the graphical matches on is great, but you're really going to want to be zoomed out anyway. If you're playing this game zoomed in to see all the detail then you're not seeing the bigger picture, and that is bad form for a manager.

What the game needs is not vast improvements to the models but more animations, collision and general fluff to make things seem like a real match more. The stadiums have gottne much better in recent FMs but if you look at the backgrounds they're poor. These are small improvements that would go to making FM better on a variety of systems.

I do tend to agree with those that say FM has always been a game for a variety of specs, and that it doesn't require a super computer.

I personally think the real worth of this game is in the depth of the simulation rather than how the game looks. FIFA is the eye candy, FM is the thinker.

Link to post
Share on other sites

while gunman makes sense with his arguments you completely miss the point and take it too literal. 

- very few people actually think the game should look like FIFA

- the MSFS 2020 example is just an example of scaling from very low to very high. In FM that is non existant. The game looks attrocious on integrated graphics as well as on new rtx 3090. That shouldn't be the case in 2020.

all games are made for variety of specs. there is no game studio in the industry that makes games only for high-end graphics. They face the same problem as SI as if they did only top graphics, they simply wouldn't sell to anyone. Hence scaling. In FM, that obviously isn't a priority for whatever reason. personally, i play the game in 2d top down view and really don't care about graphics, but I can't understand how it is possible the game looks so poor in this time and age. 

 

we obviously disagree there and that is perfectly fine. lets just drop it there then.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, MBarbaric said:

you have valid points there. but if everyone thought like that the whole time we would still be hanging off the trees. there will have to be a cut-off point which is on SI to determine when and how. we can only sit, wait and (optionally) complain.

Yeah, I agree. And like I’ve said above, I don’t think they should be holding the game back in terms of graphics, there’s definitely a large scope for improvement. The model SI have used so far is to make the minimum specs move up gradually so as to not cut too big a section of players out. Do they need to maybe speed that rate up a bit for the greater good? Possibly, but like I said (and Mr Miyagi) - balance

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, MBarbaric said:

while gunman makes sense with his arguments you completely miss the point and take it too literal. 

- very few people actually think the game should look like FIFA

- the MSFS 2020 example is just an example of scaling from very low to very high. In FM that is non existant. The game looks attrocious on integrated graphics as well as on new rtx 3090. That shouldn't be the case in 2020.

all games are made for variety of specs. there is no game studio in the industry that makes games only for high-end graphics. They face the same problem as SI as if they did only top graphics, they simply wouldn't sell to anyone. Hence scaling. In FM, that obviously isn't a priority for whatever reason. personally, i play the game in 2d top down view and really don't care about graphics, but I can't understand how it is possible the game looks so poor in this time and age. 

 

we obviously disagree there and that is perfectly fine. lets just drop it there then.

 

Well, to be fair there are not that many Football games out there that FM could be hoped to be compared to graphically. Looking at the cheaper management games on Steam the graphics are pretty similar. What is the next step up?

I feel you are also assuming it is a simple task for SI to develop the game to run on a wide variety of PCs with perfectly scaling graphics. It might well be a possible option for a lot of companies, but for SI I am sure the depth of the simulation is the priority.

Quote

The game looks attrocious on integrated graphics as well as on new rtx 3090. That shouldn't be the case in 2020.

If you think that is the case then I struggle to understand what might please you.

I'm just not sure what you are looking for or expecting. I gave suggestions as to what SI could do to make the game look a little better. Collisions would allow more scope for animations and improvements to the stadiums could do a lot for the game. I'm just not sure how you model the players to be much better than they currently are, whilst keeping the game simple enough that managers can zoom out and get the best overall picture of their team shape. Sharper textures, perhaps. I'm not claiming to be an expert, but I do play a lot of different games and am not sure what would make FM much better.

Edited by anagain
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, enigmatic said:

SI should pin this post.

It wouldn't make a blind bit of difference.  Ignorance is king nowadays, across everything.  You could have an SI developer come in here - even PaulC himself - and talk in great detail about the match engine and the challenges associated with it, and you'd get a fair few HURR DURR-ing all over it, happy to draw their own totally inaccurate conclusions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minuti fa, forameuss ha scritto:

It wouldn't make a blind bit of difference.  Ignorance is king nowadays, across everything.  You could have an SI developer come in here - even PaulC himself - and talk in great detail about the match engine and the challenges associated with it, and you'd get a fair few HURR DURR-ing all over it, happy to draw their own totally inaccurate conclusions.

i don't understand what is such a big deal there? so what if some people will draw their conclusions that aren't in line with what PaulC himself says? As you said, you will indeed always get a few of those and there are moderators to deal with that. but why deprive the whole forum (the most persistent SI community) of information because there are a few of these people that always exist??? It is like not recommending wearing masks during pandemics because there are always a few of those that will pull out some looney conspiracy theory if you say "wear masks they reduce the possibility of contagion".

Edited by MBarbaric
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, gunner86 said:

Right. But when you talk about ‘high minimum specs’ that implies more than just graphics card. 
And even then, not everyone knows how to replace one, or what they’d need to be looking for. The £500 I said was for people that would need to replace their PCs. And frankly, when we’re talking that level of investment just for better graphics, it’s not going to happen

Minimum processor is a 2003 AMD athlon , what we except with this ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a sad state of affairs if SI depends on the "10 year old machine" userbase so critically as it is presented in this community. Yes, £500 is a lot of money for a laptop, but then so is £40 for a game. A laptop has added value, including entertainment value, a game only has entertainment value. A £500 laptop is generally under warranty for 2 years and will work fine up to 5 years if properly maintained. Buying 2 to 5 editions of FM is £80 to £200. People with machines older than 5 years by now no longer will have any of the machine parts under warranty and should work with the assumption that any part can fail at any given second, requiring replacement, especially those that have 10 year old machines. If the concern is about not leaving behind the people who can't afford a newish machine, why does FM cost as an AAA title, and not £5 like Among Us?

 

Edited by goranm
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, goranm said:

 why does FM cost as an AAA title, and not £5 like Among Us?

Sorry, but this was funny. FM is much more complex than AUs (yes, i played this game) ... and, some some points of view,  more complex than many other games full of sparkling visual effects

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, goranm said:

It is a sad state of affairs if SI depends on the "10 year old machine" userbase so critically as it is presented in this community. Yes, £500 is a lot of money for a laptop, but then so is £40 for a game. A laptop has added value, including entertainment value, a game only has entertainment value. A £500 laptop is generally under warranty for 2 years and will work fine up to 5 years if properly maintained. Buying 2 to 5 editions of FM is £80 to £200. People with machines older than 5 years by now no longer will have any of the machine parts under warranty and should work with the assumption that any part can fail at any given second, requiring replacement, especially those that have 10 year old machines. If the concern is about not leaving behind the people who can't afford a newish machine, why does FM cost as an AAA title, and not £5 like Among Us?

 

Which is exactly why I had such high hopes for Stadia, that would have allowed a greater number of people to have switched to that without having to compromise on shelling out on expensive kit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, goranm said:

If the concern is about not leaving behind the people who can't afford a newish machine, why does FM cost as an AAA title, and not £5 like Among Us?

In a forum full of absolutely ludicrous takes, that has to be one of the most ludicrous I've ever seen.  Well done.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, forameuss said:

In a forum full of absolutely ludicrous takes, that has to be one of the most ludicrous I've ever seen.  Well done.

Why? Are you saying that there is no concern about affordability and leaving behind the people who can't afford a newish machine? Why do people then keep bringing up affordability of new machines, when buying FM over the expected lifetime of a newish machine will cost around 40-50% of the price of the machine?

Edited by goranm
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, goranm said:

Why? Are you saying that there is no concern about affordability and leaving behind the people who can't afford a newish machine? Why do people then keep bringing up affordability of new machines, when buying FM over the expected lifetime of a newish machine will cost around 40-50% of the price of the machine?

Jesus...

4 minutes ago, goranm said:

Why?

You seem to be seriously suggesting the product should be priced closer to a fiver.  That's the main part.

5 minutes ago, goranm said:

Are you saying that there is no concern about affordability and leaving behind the people who can't afford a newish machine?

As I've said before, one party knows exactly how much of a concern it is.  Can you guess which one that is?

6 minutes ago, goranm said:

Why do people then keep bringing up affordability of new machines, when buying FM over the expected lifetime of a newish machine will cost around 40-50% of the price of the machine?

Because it' s a valid concern for SI, maybe?  If someone is sitting in 2020 at the lower end of specs, that's likely for a reason.  You think they'll just say "oh well, FM needs a better machine, I'll just take that few hundred quid that was sitting doing nothing and spend it on a computer so I can play one product?

So, like i said, utterly ludicrous.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, GreenTriangle said:

Sorry, but this was funny. FM is much more complex than AUs (yes, i played this game) ... and, some some points of view,  more complex than many other games full of sparkling visual effects

Yeah, when taken completely out of context it is funny, I agree. Talking about the complexity of the game misses the point. Neither you nor the other user claiming this a "ludicrous take" explain why is there such a concern about the customer base that is on "10 year machines" and can't afford a newish machine, when FM over 5 years (which is a reasonable life expectancy for a newish machine) will cost 40-50% of the cost of that machine. Either that customer base shells out over 5 years about half the price of the machine, or they don't. They maybe buy FM once every two to three years - but then SI can't be that critically reliant on a customer base that buys its product every other year, or can it? So why the argument about affordability?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/10/2020 at 12:42, akm.91 said:

Not everyone plays the game on a toaster. You either keep up or get left behind. It’s 2020 and the graphics/match engine they produce is beyond woeful. 

This is such an entitled, silver-spooned response. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, goranm said:

Yeah, when taken completely out of context it is funny, I agree. Talking about the complexity of the game misses the point. Neither you nor the other user claiming this a "ludicrous take" explain why is there such a concern about the customer base that is on "10 year machines" and can't afford a newish machine, when FM over 5 years (which is a reasonable life expectancy for a newish machine) will cost 40-50% of the cost of that machine. Either that customer base shells out over 5 years about half the price of the machine, or they don't. They maybe buy FM once every two to three years - but then SI can't be that critically reliant on a customer base that buys its product every other year, or can it? So why the argument about affordability?

You don't need to buy a New machine Football Manager Touch is there ! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, forameuss said:

You seem to be seriously suggesting the product should be priced closer to a fiver.  That's the main part.

 

You seem to have trouble grasping context beyond one sentence. What I was doing was using a hyperbole. Since you don't seem to know what it is, I'll google "hyperbole" for you: "exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally".

23 minutes ago, forameuss said:

As I've said before, one party knows exactly how much of a concern it is.  Can you guess which one that is?

So why is the community voicing the concern on behalf of SI? The community has as much of an idea as I do.

23 minutes ago, forameuss said:

Because it' s a valid concern for SI, maybe?

To quote you yourself, "one party knows exactly how much of a concern it is".

23 minutes ago, forameuss said:

You think they'll just say "oh well, FM needs a better machine, I'll just take that few hundred quid that was sitting doing nothing and spend it on a computer so I can play one product?

As opposed to spending a few hundred quid on a game that has no value beyond entertainment? Again, you're missing the point. It's about the reliance on that specific customer base that I think this community is overblowing. Here's something anecdotal: the "new laptop" thread alone has around 100 pages and close to 5000 replies, just for this year. Furthermore, if SI is really critically reliant on a userbase that can't afford a newish machine every 5ish years, then something went really wrong and we should really be concerned. If someone can't afford a newish machine every 5ish years, they can't afford the game over 5 years, so they'll be buying it irregularly. Meaning that SI was not able to attract the customers with higher purchasing power, who are looking elsewhere for their entertainment. Yet we keep hearing about record breaking sales.

Edited by goranm
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, goranm said:

You seem to have trouble grasping context beyond one sentence. What I was doing was using a hyperbole. Since you don't seem to know what it is, I'll google "hyperbole" for you: "exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally".

So why is the community voicing the concern on behalf of SI? The community has as much of an idea as I do.

To quote you yourself, "one party knows exactly how much of a concern it is".

As opposed to spending a few hundred quid on a game that has no value beyond entertainment? Again, you're missing the point. It's about the reliance on that specific customer base that I think this community is overblowing. Here's something anecdotal: the "new laptop" thread alone has around 100 pages and close to 5000 replies, just for this year. Furthermore, if SI is really critically reliant on a userbase that can't afford a newish machine every 5ish years, then something went really wrong and we should really be concerned. If someone can't afford a newish machine every 5ish years, they can't afford the game over 5 years, so they'll be buying it irregularly. Meaning that SI was not able to attract the customers with higher purchasing power, who are looking elsewhere for their entertainment. Yet we keep hearing about record breaking sales.

If I was going to try and passively aggressively lecture someone, I'd probably have made sure anything I'd said wasn't completely ridiculous.  Swing and a miss for you unfortunately.

There's something painfully ironic about your post, but I'm sure someone as learned as you knows that already.  Must be some of that hyperbole or something.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, forameuss said:

If I was going to try and passively aggressively lecture someone, I'd probably have made sure anything I'd said wasn't completely ridiculous.  Swing and a miss for you unfortunately.

There's something painfully ironic about your post, but I'm sure someone as learned as you knows that already.  Must be some of that hyperbole or something.

Sorry mate, you were the one who set the rude and patronizing tone with "has to be one of the most ludicrous I've ever seen.  Well done". Don't expect others to play nice with you when you can't.

10 minutes ago, forameuss said:

Swing and a miss for you unfortunately.

Sure thing, buddy. If you had anything more than a baseball reference to add, you would have. Unless you've in the meanwhile put an effort to comprehend more than one sentence at a time, please stop replying to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, forameuss said:

It wouldn't make a blind bit of difference.  Ignorance is king nowadays, across everything.  You could have an SI developer come in here - even PaulC himself - and talk in great detail about the match engine and the challenges associated with it, and you'd get a fair few HURR DURR-ing all over it, happy to draw their own totally inaccurate conclusions.

Ignore those HURR DURR-ing fellows. If it is insulting anyone, report the post and have moderators do their job and remove the post and fine them or ban them depend of level insult it is. It is really no brain.

I find ignoring the rest of this forum members who are comprehensive and understanding because of a few, is also not the way to go.

Edited by grade
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, goranm said:

You seem to have trouble grasping context beyond one sentence. What I was doing was using a hyperbole. Since you don't seem to know what it is, I'll google "hyperbole" for you: "exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally".

So why is the community voicing the concern on behalf of SI? The community has as much of an idea as I do.

To quote you yourself, "one party knows exactly how much of a concern it is".

As opposed to spending a few hundred quid on a game that has no value beyond entertainment? Again, you're missing the point. It's about the reliance on that specific customer base that I think this community is overblowing. Here's something anecdotal: the "new laptop" thread alone has around 100 pages and close to 5000 replies, just for this year. Furthermore, if SI is really critically reliant on a userbase that can't afford a newish machine every 5ish years, then something went really wrong and we should really be concerned. If someone can't afford a newish machine every 5ish years, they can't afford the game over 5 years, so they'll be buying it irregularly. Meaning that SI was not able to attract the customers with higher purchasing power, who are looking elsewhere for their entertainment. Yet we keep hearing about record breaking sales.

If he can't buy a New one why he don't play on FM Touch ?Because you don't need a Spaceship to run FM this not Star-Citizen or Cyberpunk 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/10/2020 at 13:20, JordanMillward_1 said:

Because leaving a third of your audience behind is a superb idea that won't just result in them not buying the game anymore 

Who talk about " leaving a third of your audience behind " ? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/10/2020 at 10:26, Dbuk1 said:

The day we see the game with high minimum specs will be music to my ears. If players love the series they will follow.

The i3 should be the minimal process requierement for complexe game like FM but it will be the case that from 2035, we must accept that Sports Interactive is launched in a marketing policy unusual in our world we must accept it, if we can not hope for graphics at a level of PES 10 -12 (or a rapid progression) we can now hope that the animations are better from year to year (and they always work on animations ! )

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, goranm said:

Yeah, when taken completely out of context it is funny, I agree. Talking about the complexity of the game misses the point.

Really ?

"Intel® Core™ 2 Duo E6600 or AMD Phenom™ X3 8750; RAM: 2 GB; VIDEO CARD: Video card must be 256 MB or more"

These are specs for the most played Mp-FPS.  It's incredible how many players choose a game that don't need "high minimum specs". Of course, the fact that game has has certain specific characteristics  is not important at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, GreenTriangle said:

Really ?

"Intel® Core™ 2 Duo E6600 or AMD Phenom™ X3 8750; RAM: 2 GB; VIDEO CARD: Video card must be 256 MB or more"

These are specs for the most played Mp-FPS.  It's incredible how many players choose a game that don't need "high minimum specs". Of course, the fact that game has has certain specific characteristics  is not important at all.

Yes, really. The argument isn't about if the minimum specs are sufficient for FM's complexity, but about how this community perceives the reliance of SI on customers on the very low end of specs - I think that this is overblown. Even in this thread "leaving a third of your audience behind" if the specs are increased is mentioned. At the same time there is the "new laptop" thread that has 5000 replies just for this year. All of this is anecdotal of course, and only SI know the figures. However, if it is really the case that SI rely that much on the customers on the very low end of specs (a third), then that's worrying, because that's indicative of SI not being able to attract customers with higher purchasing power, and once the customers that can't afford a newish machine won't be able to afford even FM (say in a challenging year like 2020), sales will significantly drop.

I don't know about which MP-FPS you are talking about, but COD-MW2 was the highest selling game of 2019 and its minimal requirements are Intel Core i3-4340 (launched in 2014) or AMD FX-6300 (from 2013), 8GB RAM, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 / NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 or AMD Radeon HD 7950.

Also, PUBG is one of the highest selling games (among all games, not just FPS) on PC, has about 10 million more reported PC sales than Minecraft and has much higher minimum specs than Minecraft: Intel i5-4430 / AMD FX-6300, 8 GB RAM, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 2GB / AMD Radeon R7 370 2GB.

 

Edited by goranm
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly, the Steam store gives the following as the minimum requirements for playing The Ultimate Doom:

Quote
  • MINIMUM:A 100% Windows XP/Vista-compatible computer system

Doom (the original) can be run on a toaster. On a satnav. I think on a kettle, once. Maybe even an electronic pregnancy test, if I didn't imagine that. Minimum requirements are almost always simply a guide. 

 

Which is just extending how far this has gone off-topic, but whatever.

I've been playing the game since 97/98 consistently, and a couple of years before that on-and-off. The game overall gets better each year (some aspects occasionally get worse). I'm sure the devs are aware of areas that need significant work, and will have allocated a lot of time to those aspects of the game during development of FM21.

They're working off match engine code that's been iterated on since before a fair number of people in this forum were born. It's complex. I assume if there are 'unfixed' match engine issues (like crossing), it's because it's really hard to fix during a game's lifetime without royally screwing up another aspect of the match engine. These things don't tend to survive from one version to the next.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, goranm said:

I don't know about which MP-FPS you are talking about, but COD-MW2 was the highest selling game of 2019

:applause: ... and almost no one plays this game now. Let's say .. 100 or 200 players. PUBG ? Huh, it has 5 % of FM complexity. PUBG means 90 % reflexes and 10 % strategy. Let's be serious. Is FM perfect ? No. Can be improved (and need to be improved) ? Yes. Is FM unplayable "because it does not have sparkling graphics" ? That's a joke.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, GreenTriangle said:

:applause: ... and almost no one plays this game now. Let's say .. 100 or 200 players.

You are either deluded or trolling or both. Warzone is one of the most popular games currently with some +50 million players.

7 hours ago, GreenTriangle said:

PUBG ? Huh, it has 5 % of FM complexity. PUBG means 90 % reflexes and 10 % strategy. Let's be serious. Is FM perfect ? No. Can be improved (and need to be improved) ? Yes. Is FM unplayable "because it does not have sparkling graphics" ? That's a joke.

Huh? Literally no-one said that FM is unplayable because it does not have sparkling graphics. You are confusing how a game is played with what a game requires to be played. You were saying that a lot of players choose a FPS with very low minimal requirements (and I'm yet to find out which one it is) - I pointed out that there's more than plenty of people playing FPS's with (relative to FM) high minimal requirements. Please don't reply if you're going to continue to be a troll.

Edited by goranm
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...