SI Inconsistency: Realism vs Escapism

[themadsheep2001]

1 minute ago, DamianJMcGrath said:

Fastest growing is an odd statement to make, as its starting from a very low benchmark and men's football can't exactly grow much more than it is! 

I had £1 in my bank yesterday, now I have £2. It's the fastest growing bank account in the country! 

And I still think it would be interesting to see usage stats on leagues. I wonder if SI can do that. 

And its worth saying that underused mens leagues are part of the men's world overall, so you can make transfers etc. Apart from a few countries, women's football is still pretty small. 

 

There are leagues in the game that are smaller, should we get rid of those?

[DamianJMcGrath]

8 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

There are leagues in the game that are smaller, should we get rid of those?

What do you have in mind? 

And like I said, even small mens leagues make up the mens world overall. There are transfers between those teams. You need them for European competitions etc. It's part of an overall large world. 

The women's side doesn't have that yet. The game world simply isn't there. Transfers are infrequent. The largest one ever was £350k I believe, in whatever currency it was. 

And the jury is out on measuring quality. Whether a women's team would beat a lower ranked mens team. That's an impossible question. 

But the overall women's world is tiny in comparison, so my thoughts are, it was a little early to add them. I'd be really interested to learn exactly how big the demand was from FM players. People don't tend to object much, but I wonder if the majority were actively requesting it. 

 

Either way, pointless (although interesting) chat. It's done now. 

Edited April 11, 2022 by DamianJMcGrath

[themadsheep2001]

6 minutes ago, DamianJMcGrath said:

What do you have in mind? 

And like I said, even small mens leagues make up the mens world overall. There are transfers between those teams. You need them for European competitions etc. It's part of an overall large world. 

The women's side doesn't have that yet. And the jury is out on measuring quality. Whether a women's team would beat a lower ranked mens team. That's an impossible question. 

But the overall women's world is tiny in comparison, so my thoughts are, it was a little early to add them. I'd be really interested to learn exactly how big the demand was from FM players. People don't tend to object much, but I wonder if the majority were actively requesting it. 

 

Either way, pointless (although interesting) chat. It's done now. 

And women's football is part of the overall footballing world.

Whether a womens team could beat mens team is irrelevant. Most low ranking sides will never beat Man City that doesn't mean they shouldn't be in the game.

There are tiny leagues in FM but we don't make arbitrary demands of league size or quality of them, or worry about how many people might play as them. So why have the goalposts suddenly moved? Why do we suddenly need to care what the demand is for them?

[DamianJMcGrath]

3 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

And women's football is part of the overall footballing world.

Whether a womens team could beat mens team is irrelevant. Most low ranking sides will never beat Man City that doesn't mean they shouldn't be in the game.

There are tiny leagues in FM but we don't make arbitrary demands of league size or quality of them, or worry about how many people might play as them. So why have the goalposts suddenly moved? Why do we suddenly need to care what the demand is for them?

Because let's say no one ever plays the Brazilian league. Well, Man City buy players directly from Brazilian clubs so it would make sense to have them represented.

And even in smaller countries with smaller leagues, you have relatively large fan bases ready to assist with scouting for the game. Outside of a few countries, you don't really have that yet for the women's side. 

It'll be a relatively small world. It's just a matter of timing and I thought it was too soon. 

And I actually do think that if there was a conversation about adding a football league based in Greenland or Fiji, there would probably be a cost benefit analysis done. 

And when you say women's football is part of the overall world, what do you mean? Obviously there's no inter gender transfers. When I'm managing Man United in game, how do I know about women's football? It's basically two games in one, separate. There's a reason they very quickly dismissed the thought about releasing a standalone game. 

[DamianJMcGrath]

I think it's clear, and it's even been said outright. They aren't really adding women's football because of the overwhelming demand for it. 

They are adding it so they can say they've added it. They can claim they've contributed to the growth. Got in there early, so when it's bigger, they can claim some credit. 

I'm not even saying that's not OK. It's probably a smart business decision. Get your brand associated with it. 

But it's probably more a political brand awareness thing than a responding to player demand thing. I get why they've done it, but personally, I don't really like that sort of thing. Just my own view. It's approaching the "looking for a cause" or tokenism thing. It's not quite that but there's just something I don't like about it. 

Anyway, as I've said, it's done. Decision has been made. I'm sure people will enjoy playing those leagues. Usage stats would be great though. Very interesting reading. 

[themadsheep2001]

9 minutes ago, DamianJMcGrath said:

Because let's say no one ever plays the Brazilian league. Well, Man City buy players directly from Brazilian clubs so it would make sense to have them represented.

And even in smaller countries with smaller leagues, you have relatively large fan bases ready to assist with scouting for the game. Outside of a few countries, you don't really have that yet for the women's side. 

It'll be a relatively small world. It's just a matter of timing and I thought it was too soon. 

And I actually do think that if there was a conversation about adding a football league based in Greenland or Fiji, there would probably be a cost benefit analysis done. 

And when you say women's football is part of the overall world, what do you mean? Obviously there's no inter gender transfers. When I'm managing Man United in game, how do I know about women's football? It's basically two games in one, separate. There's a reason they very quickly dismissed the thought about releasing a standalone game. 

They aren't in there because Man City buys players from them. 

If you check researcher positions, you'll often find this isn't the case, its often just a few people really dedicated it, who make that happen, same way they are finding researchers for the women's game

The reason they put it as one game was very clear: "What we are doing is adding women’s football to FM... one sport, one game. FM players will be able to move seamlessly from managing a men’s team to a women’s team and back again. Women’s football will be a part of the living, breathing world that constitutes every one of your FM saves; that world will just be whole lot bigger and a little more varied" It's the power fantasy of being a manager anywhere in the world.

I think the fact that you think it's all about credit/PC doesn't paint you in the best light as far as I'm concerned to be honest, you seem intent on trying to make out there's no legitimate reason for it to exist in FM. So I'll leave it there

[grade]

Aren't we going in circle again? And bit off topic here? What does have the women's feature in FM about Realism vs Escapism? Women football exists, right? It should exist in FM. Deal with it. Stop this endless debate and get the thread closed and ruin the thread for the rest of us.

Here's my attempt to making this thread back on topic.

have you seen the Metahumans in Unreal Engine 5?

For me the realism I want in FM is looking to pictures of footballers and staff, looking like the ones in this video. Not sure the technical part of this would be possible. not the bad "animatronics" that we have in game

The realism I want for FM is that the match 3D feels like I'm watching a real football match (not saying a coach camera angle but can be option to those that wish to have one).

Edited April 11, 2022 by grade

[herne79]

@DamianJMcGrath. @Metal @everyone else who agrees

TL;DR - I’m afraid all you are presenting are logical fallacies and ad hominem arguments and thus irrelevant.  I’ll explain why and hopefully you’ll all understand.  (Ok long version, strap in ).

I’ll start with a little story.  I used to be a Finance Manager working in the head office of one of the world’s largest multi-national banks.  Part of the role was to work closely with Product and Project managers, to help them set financial budgets to maintain and enhance existing products and to help prepare business cases and financial models to obtain agreement to develop new products.  As part of each business case, alternative solutions always had to be explored, including a “do nothing” option - that option being don’t develop new products but instead divert even more resource (ie., cost) to the swifter enhancement of existing products.  Sound familiar?  Seems like a logical thing to do right?  The problem is that way of thinking tends to be flawed logic (ie., a fallacy).

There are reasons why this is a fallacy.  If you don’t expand as a business into new untapped markets through an expanded product line, you’re dead in the water.  You’re giving away new income streams, usually to your competitors who will quite happily expand their product range.  Customer loyalty also plays a part - as a customer you may not want product A from one source and product B from someone else.  It’s usually more convenient and cost effective to take both products from a single supplier if one supplier can’t offer both products but another can.  Cost is also a significant factor.  Costs need to be recovered, so if all you do is throw more and more money at an existing product you need to make sure you still turn a profit.  To do that you need to understand your market - does there remain a significant untapped market for your existing product to recover all those additional costs?  Would the market support a sharp up turn in the price of that product as your costs have increased so much?  It’s a fine balancing act.  In SI’s specific case I’d suggest they do know their market pretty well because they’re not just throwing more and more resource at FM, and thus keeping the price of the game at acceptable levels.  SI are of course continuing to enhance the existing product offering and will continue to - as far as I’m aware they’re not reducing the focus on that at all, they may even be expanding it within acceptable cost guidelines.  If SI are not improving the existing game fast enough for some of it’s customers well that’s part of this balancing act of keeping costs down to keep product price acceptable and thus not lose business.  How many customers would accept a large price increase in the game?  Only SI will know that but based on what they are doing I’d guess a significant proportion would not.

So yes, it might seem logical to improve the game faster than they are before adding new additional features, such as female players and leagues, but as explained above, that logic is flawed - it’s a logical fallacy.  In reality the “do nothing except throw more and more resource at an existing product” option is rarely a sustainable and viable option, and tends to make zero business sense.

Ad hominems on the other hand are far more straight forward.  These are “arguments” which attack the person not their position.  By trotting out “it’s political correctness”; “it’s tokenism”; “it’s getting in early to score some brownie points and take credit” you attack SI, not what they are doing.  Such comments are generated solely by your own cynical assumptions and always say more about the person making those cynical comments than it ever will about the person (or in this case company) at which they are aimed.

So by all means state your opinions, but so far those opinions are based in flawed logic and cynical personal attacks, which I’m afraid are ultimately irrelevant.

[DamianJMcGrath]

@herne79 your comment assumes that spending money to develop the product by adding women's football and other things will attract new customers. I think this discussion was about "will it?". Is the demand really that high? You didn't answer that in your essay.

In my personal opinion, developing the game to improve gameplay and make the game more fun will attract new customers in a bigger way. The WWE games are a good example. They've been poor for years. This year, they haven't really added many new features but have significantly improved the fun and gameplay and sales are very high. 

I think your opinion of "spending money to improve the product isn't sensible compared to adding new features" is incorrect. Obviously, we will never know. But I genuinely believe improving the game without the new features we're talking about would attract more new customers than those new features. 

Lastly, your final paragraph seemed to say "your comments are solely driven by my own assumptions". Of course. My opinions are my opinions. Of course they're driven by my assumptions. I don't have facts such as how big the demand was, usage stats, etc. 

And I do also believe that adding functionality that there wasn't a big demand for (again, I have no facts, it's an assumption) is acceptable to question, and when it's on this sort of topic, it's understandable to think tokenism or bandwagon etc. I don't think it's right to criticise people for thinking that. 

[Nicenoise]

So, what will be in the game earlier: women's football or keeper's ingame injuries?

[Daveincid]

vor 15 Minuten schrieb Nicenoise:

So, what will be in the game earlier: women's football or keeper's ingame injuries?

In my savegame there are currently 1291/49368 GK injured. So I would bet everything I have on injuries, because they are already there

[Rashidi]

1 hour ago, DamianJMcGrath said:

 

I think your opinion of "spending money to improve the product isn't sensible compared to adding new features" is incorrect. Obviously, we will never know. But I genuinely believe improving the game without the new features we're talking about would attract more new customers than those new features. 

 

At the end of the day opening the game up to Women's football is a new market. SI also add new features to the game in every edition. Assuming that the addition of the womens game is going to devalue any new features is an assumption. They can only be judged on that once any new game is out.  They plan to head in that direction eventually, which is great for inclusivity, I for one applaud the move.

There are still areas of the game they need to improve, some of these areas affect the "escapism" factor for me and these are areas of the game SI have to address: The UI bugs that have been in the game for I dont know since FM12?  Specifically the UI bug related to the pressing intensity slider and how it can say "less" when the team is on maximum pressing intensity. Or how the effects of match preparation continue to be misrepresented in the game. Some are old UI bugs and some are new ones. Personally for me, I applaud the inclusion of the women's football game, and while SI are investing in that area, I hope they also address features of the game that in desperate need of improvements too.  So while we sit down here and discuss 'escapism vs reality' lets find a common ground. Good features are exciting, lets not forget to fix areas of the game that need to be addressed.

[DamianJMcGrath]

I think @Rashidiis saying what we've been saying. Focusing on broken or poor parts of the game is very important.

Some people in here have the opinion that it's more important than new features, and the addition of any new feature will take development time away from other things. 

Some people have the opinion that new features and improving core things can be done in parallel. It obviously can, but it can't be 100% on both. 

Some people like new features at the expense of improving old things. Or they think old things are good enough now. That was kind of hermes point when he said new features is what drives new customers. That's a view. 

It's impossible to know which approach is right. I have my opinion, and others have theirs. More importantly, SI have theirs. As consumers of their product, people are allowed to express their opinion. 

Purely personally, if I feel there's some big bugs and instead of fixing them, they introduce women's leagues, I'll be dissatisfied. It feels like there's a few that agree, and a few that don't. And if people say "they can do both, they've hired new people" but then they don't do both, and pretty large bugs remain, then that'll be annoying. 

[herne79]

1 hour ago, DamianJMcGrath said:

That was kind of hermes point

No, it really wasn’t.

[HUNT3R]

@DamianJMcGrath Have you read the blog on how women's football is going to be introduced? Reading through your (and a couple of others') posts, it doesn't seem like it. I'll link it, just in case you haven't seen it.

https://www.footballmanager.com/news/how-were-introducing-womens-football-football-manager

[podunkboy]

I'm looking forward to women's football being added - after 10+ years of having to deal with constant whining and mewling by the lads about wanting another contract after 53 weeks or wanting more football if he doesn't start every match, I'm looking for calm and rational interactions with lady footballers. Right, SI?

[DamianJMcGrath]

9 hours ago, herne79 said:

No, it really wasn’t.

Your point was, and I quote, if you don't tap into new markets, you're dead in the water. I wonder what new markets the WWE and F1 game is tapping into. 

I stand by my view that I simply don't believe the demand for women's football is big enough to justify it, and especially justify not fixing other issues above doing it. And no one can say "but, it's a different team" because that different team could be fixing bugs as well. They're not. 

 

7 hours ago, podunkboy said:

I'm looking forward to women's football being added - after 10+ years of having to deal with constant whining and mewling by the lads about wanting another contract after 53 weeks or wanting more football if he doesn't start every match, I'm looking for calm and rational interactions with lady footballers. Right, SI?

I'm looking forward to playing most matches in front of 8 people, having a £9 wage budget, and probably having half my squad leave suddenly when they realise Tesco are paying more. 

 

8 hours ago, HUNT3R said:

@DamianJMcGrath Have you read the blog on how women's football is going to be introduced? Reading through your (and a couple of others') posts, it doesn't seem like it. I'll link it, just in case you haven't seen it.

https://www.footballmanager.com/news/how-were-introducing-womens-football-football-manager

I have. Of course I have. 

No standalone game implies the demand isn't there. Having 1 game world is slightly odd as not many people move between men's and womens football. So, it is effectively two parallel worlds.

I do hope that when I load my handful of leagues on my pretty old laptop, it doesn't force me to load the women as well. 

[deltablue]

18 minutes ago, DamianJMcGrath said:

I'm looking forward to playing most matches in front of 8 people, having a £9 wage budget, and probably having half my squad leave suddenly when they realise Tesco are paying more. 

That's an incredibly insulting remark about women's football. It may not have the crowds and wages of the top end of the men's game but it's still a proper professional set-up.

[XaW]

15 minutes ago, DamianJMcGrath said:

I'm looking forward to playing most matches in front of 8 people, having a £9 wage budget, and probably having half my squad leave suddenly when they realise Tesco are paying more. 

So roughly the same as the lower leagues in small nations already in the game, then? If your base statement is "I don't care about women's football", you are showing you do care about it by using time to discuss it here.

You claim you are against it for a myriad of reasons, but every time someone comes with a reasonable counterargument you step into another one, or just make snarky somewhat misogynistic comments like that... So what is your issue with it, really? Herne explained the financial way it's handled and how new functionality vs bug fixes are done, the popularity is clearly greater than other male leagues in the game, so I don't really see why you are so passionately against it, unless it has something to with it being women's football itself.

So if you have any rational arguments for it not already explained here, please do say so, but keep insults like this one out of it, if you want anyone to have any other image of you other than someone who is afraid of women entering a mostly male dominated arena.

[Freakiie]

And people like that still try to argue that this is not about sexism. I mean, seriously?

[Nicenoise]

6 часов назад, Daveincid сказал:

In my savegame there are currently 1291/49368 GK injured. So I would bet everything I have on injuries, because they are already there

they are all training injuries, so they are not

[themadsheep2001]

42 minutes ago, XaW said:

So roughly the same as the lower leagues in small nations already in the game, then? If your base statement is "I don't care about women's football", you are showing you do care about it by using time to discuss it here.

You claim you are against it for a myriad of reasons, but every time someone comes with a reasonable counterargument you step into another one, or just make snarky somewhat misogynistic comments like that... So what is your issue with it, really? Herne explained the financial way it's handled and how new functionality vs bug fixes are done, the popularity is clearly greater than other male leagues in the game, so I don't really see why you are so passionately against it, unless it has something to with it being women's football itself.

So if you have any rational arguments for it not already explained here, please do say so, but keep insults like this one out of it, if you want anyone to have any other image of you other than someone who is afraid of women entering a mostly male dominated arena.

Let's be clear, he was complaining that he  was going to be called sexist, and then when challenged can only offer mysoginistic digs. Let's put aside opinions for a second, comments like that are against the house rules and any further will result in action. 

[Daveincid]

vor 36 Minuten schrieb Nicenoise:

they are all training injuries, so they are not

Interesting...just that you know:
1. There are 21 injuries which can happen to GK's in total
2. For every injury there is a occurrence-% how many of them happen in a game and how many in training ( you can check those informations in the pre-game editor yourself)
3. You are welcome
 

[podunkboy]

1 hour ago, DamianJMcGrath said:

I'm looking forward to playing most matches in front of 8 people, having a £9 wage budget, and probably having half my squad leave suddenly when they realise Tesco are paying more. 

I generally start every year with a LLM save where the team's amateur, they have 3 season ticket holders, and anyone who shows a hint of promise is snapped up by a paying club for no transfer fee, so I'm perfectly comfortable in that world. 

 

[deltablue]

19 minutes ago, podunkboy said:

I generally start every year with a LLM save where the team's amateur, they have 3 season ticket holders, and anyone who shows a hint of promise is snapped up by a paying club for no transfer fee, so I'm perfectly comfortable in that world. 

 

I'm currently playing with an English lower league database where I started at an amateur level where my players could also be snapped at any time, there was obviously no budget and all the grounds had a capacity of 50 with no prospect of getting an expansion or a new ground. It was nice to explore such low levels before I got up to the playable leagues.

[Nicenoise]

2 часа назад, Daveincid сказал:

Interesting...just that you know:
1. There are 21 injuries which can happen to GK's in total
2. For every injury there is a occurrence-% how many of them happen in a game and how many in training ( you can check those informations in the pre-game editor yourself)
3. You are welcome
 

i don't want to be the man who denies the truth, but i did not see one since my first 2012 fm. thanks for educating me.

[Daveincid]

vor 9 Minuten schrieb Nicenoise:

i don't want to be the man who denies the truth, but i did not see one since my first 2012 fm. thanks for educating me.

I agree that they do not happen very often, because SI lowered injuries-frequency compared to real-life stats for about 20% (as far as I know). So it's a good example that sometimes realism/escapism isn't always strictly separated.

[Truegunner]

Personally I am always up for more inclusivity (I love all types of football so I am open to including the women's game), however I do wonder how this will be realistically implemented. Look at how EA added women's teams into FIFA they advertised their addition heavily, added the national teams and then locked down the ability to play them against the male teams in the game. Since then they have basically done nothing with these teams (only usable in tournaments and kick off) and they have been largely ignored by EA (and as a result its player base). Also what teams/leagues will be added as doing what EA have done will simply not be enough? I do have other concerns in that this will be the main focus for the next few games and other areas may end up neglected (which likely could happen as according to what the blog post has stated this will be a very large undertaking costing millions).

[DamianJMcGrath]

5 hours ago, Truegunner said:

Personally I am always up for more inclusivity (I love all types of football so I am open to including the women's game), however I do wonder how this will be realistically implemented. Look at how EA added women's teams into FIFA they advertised their addition heavily, added the national teams and then locked down the ability to play them against the male teams in the game. Since then they have basically done nothing with these teams (only usable in tournaments and kick off) and they have been largely ignored by EA (and as a result its player base). Also what teams/leagues will be added as doing what EA have done will simply not be enough? I do have other concerns in that this will be the main focus for the next few games and other areas may end up neglected (which likely could happen as according to what the blog post has stated this will be a very large undertaking costing millions).

People don't seem to realise this point. It's been stated several times and people seem to be deliberately ignoring it. 

Adding women's football to the game costs money and takes up resources. These resources could have been used on other areas, so the fact they're not, means those other areas won't be as polished as they could be. 

This approach is fine if you're adding a new feature that everyone is demanding. I think it's questionable when you're adding something that isn't really much in demand, probably won't be used much long term (like your FIFA example) and is effectively not part of the main game (yes, it might be 1 world but there's not much crossover, and in reality, it's not likely that managers and staff will move between men and women's football. Manager achievements in women's football don't count for much when applying for men's football jobs). 

I don't think that people are recognising these flaws. They just call people sexist. 

And when people make clear jokes (in response to a jokey post), people jump on the sexist name calling very quickly. It's pretty toxic really. Oh well. 

I guess we'll all see what happens over the next few years and see what sort of comments this forum attracts. 

[santy001]

FM has some serious limitations to what throwing money at can achieve. The games industry as a whole means its incredibly likely that visually an 'off the shelf' system will be needed in the longer term. Maybe not in the next 5 years but personally my belief is that as evidenced by the likes of CD Projekt Red, Blizzard and various other studios that in-house graphics engines are on their way out for all except the most massive of studios. Even they may still make the move in time and we'll end up in a situation where perhaps its a choice between Unity/Unreal/Frostbite (some EA studios still have issues with this though). CD Projekt Red had major issues with Cyberpunk and have announced they're moving to Unreal Engine, Blizzard are still struggling years down the line to actually fully integrate new staff on working on their in-house systems because they're so different to what new generations learn. 

So SI could in theory throw millions at hiring new artists who work on that side of the game for the presentation of the ME and they'd do nothing productive. In fact, it would more than likely sandbag any current development in that area over the next couple of years as you look to skill-up these staff on an in-house system and how it works and integrates the game. If during that time you have staff attrition, you can very quickly reach a point where you have a whole bunch of new hires with very few people to train them. You may well have been better bringing in 1 person, letting them learn from 10-15 people rather than bringing in 100. 

This issue probably becomes tenfold more complex with the ME. I can imagine that in SI's position, when a staff member calls it a day who is an ME coder that is pretty much an irreplaceable loss. The thing is now they've been going at this for so long as a studio. There have to be people who have retired or perhaps its on the horizon in the next 5-10 years and you cannot just get a like-for-like replacement there. Again, bring in too many new staff though and it just sandbags development. There isn't enough hours to get them accurately familiarised with the way it works, and if someone has a poor 2 year experience where they don't feel like they can contribute because you've just thrown money and hired a load of people with the capacity to help them cultivate their skillset towards what is needed they probably move on to another developer as that seems to be quite a common issue arising with some studios like Ubisoft if the internet is to be believed. 

I'm far too ignorant of the nuances in the ME. The tiny sliver I know just scratching at the surface. There's probably an untapped market out there somewhere for the things the ME is capable of in a different package away from football. I've always thought an RTS game with as sophisticated a calculation system underneath it as FM has for example would be truly phenomenal. A brief branching off topic but a much greater morale system being involved, positioning and approaches that are currently used for ball physics and individual people applied to weapons & attacks instead. It would be huge work, but maybe that's the future of the ME one day, it being licenced out by SI to other game developers in the same way engines like Unreal get licenced out. 

Coming back on point though, in the games industry, polish and development is rarely just throwing more numbers and money at it. In many instances in fact, it has been a burden and ruined development of so many games. Whether you utilise women's football or not, it will have some passive improvements on the game you will benefit from. A few from the top of my mind that I can easily foresee manifesting are:

- Better physicals and modelling of shorter players, women on average are shorter, this area will need to be dramatically improved. It means height overall will be better represented in the game across the spectrum quite passively.
- Improved tactics, by ensuring that women's football can be replicated in game it will inherently bring some changes that give more options for players who are utilising the men's side of the game too.
- More diverse financing models, contracts, structures within clubs etc.
- Approaches to training and conditioning.
- Re-evaluating how all attributes work and so further definitions/refining in this area.

There will be countless others that I'm ignorant of or cannot think of. The interesting thing is that the inclusion of women's football will force SI to look at a number of areas which have long stood unexamined, or were perhaps lower priority to do so because they were extremely functional, and there probably wasn't enough information from within the sport to change these. 

[HUNT3R]

6 minutes ago, DamianJMcGrath said:

Adding women's football to the game costs money and takes up resources. These resources could have been used on other areas, so the fact they're not, means those other areas won't be as polished as they could be. 

This was covered in the blog:

Quote

 

Of course, many of the tasks mentioned so far can run simultaneously, which will shorten the timeline, but we are realistic that bringing women’s football to FM is going to be a multi-year project. At this stage we don’t know exactly how long the process will take so we can’t say exactly which version of FM will see women’s football make its debut, but rest assured that our plan is to make this happen as soon as we possibly can, whilst ensuring that you are still getting all the features you’d expect from new versions of FM by adding resources to the existing team.

I mentioned earlier in the blog that the cost of this project will be substantial. To help offset some of those costs we have already started conversations with some potential commercial partners who share our vision and who will be able to offer financial help in return for a wide integration of their brand into FM.

 

Deals like these help cover costs of what they're doing so far:

Quote

But we’re also committed to being a commercial partner for women’s football. We have ongoing partnerships with AFC Wimbledon Ladies & Girls and Watford Women as part of our deals with their men’s teams. But that’s not enough. So, today I’m also proud to announce that we’ve signed a commercial partnership agreement for the 2021/22 season with Leicester City Women, which will see FM branding feature on the dugout and interview boards for the club.

 

As for this:

18 minutes ago, DamianJMcGrath said:

This approach is fine if you're adding a new feature that everyone is demanding. I think it's questionable when you're adding something that isn't really much in demand, probably won't be used much long term (like your FIFA example) and is effectively not part of the main game (yes, it might be 1 world but there's not much crossover, and in reality, it's not likely that managers and staff will move between men and women's football. Manager achievements in women's football don't count for much when applying for men's football jobs). 

You're firstly look at the demand as it is currently and second, the demand for what FIFA has introduced.

The demand currently might be fairly low, but the women's game is gaining popularity from what I can see and quite quickly too. By the time it is implemented into FM (which may be a year or 2 or 3) it will be more popular than it is right now, so the demand will be more.

As for my second point, SI won't be doing what EA is. We'll have (based on the blog) multiple leagues (which is, imo, better than what EA did) and the ability to switch between the women's and men's game because it's part of the same game world, which isn't possible in FIFA. That alone makes it more appealing than FIFA's offering and will definitely increase interest in the women's game. Since it is in the same game world, achievements will surely count no matter where you manage.

[Daveincid]

vor 16 Minuten schrieb santy001:

- More diverse financing models, contracts, structures within clubs etc.

Sounds like a perfect advertising to me! You got me. I want it! I want it now

 

[CFuller]

59 minutes ago, DamianJMcGrath said:

This approach is fine if you're adding a new feature that everyone is demanding. I think it's questionable when you're adding something that isn't really much in demand, probably won't be used much long term (like your FIFA example) and is effectively not part of the main game (yes, it might be 1 world but there's not much crossover, and in reality, it's not likely that managers and staff will move between men and women's football. Manager achievements in women's football don't count for much when applying for men's football jobs). 

John Herdman managed the Canada women's team for years before taking over the Canadian men's team, who've just qualified for their first World Cup since 1986. He arguably got that job because he was successful with the women's team (they were bronze medallists at the Olympics - TWICE. The women's Olympic football tournament is actually a serious senior event, unlike the men's, which is basically a glorified Under-23s competition).

Mark Sampson led England to their best ever Women's World Cup, and his next job was on Stevenage's coaching staff. Phil Neville was a coach at Manchester United and Valencia, then replaced Sampson as England women's manager, and is now at Inter Miami.

Neil Redfearn went from Leeds (M) > Rotherham (M) > Doncaster (W) > Liverpool (W) > Newcastle U23s (M) > Sheffield United (W). Marcus Bignot has managed Solihull, Grimsby and Chester in men's non-league football, in between spells managing Birmingham women and Aston Villa women. Those are just a few examples.

Other users have already debunked your arguments about how 'nobody cares' about women's football or how it'll take up too many resources. Apart from your ridiculous Tesco comment, I think your views on the women's game come across as simply outdated rather than being particularly sexist. Your perception of top female footballers playing for a few quid a week in front of a dozen people is at least 20 years out of date. I'd suggest you educate yourself before you dig yourself into an even deeper hole.

[themadsheep2001]

Most people have summed the various other bits up, but it should also be really obvious that a mysoginistic joke is still mysoginistic, so one can't complain if they a) get pushback from other users and b) get a ticking off from moderators. The "it was just a joke" is a not a defence, and doesn't get you a pass

[forameuss]

Another part that so many don't seem to focus on is that although there will be separate teams, adding something like this which makes use of the wider core is going to have benefits across the board, not just with women's football itself.  I expect - or at least hope - that it will contain, at the very least, its own version of the match engine.  Work on that may lead to asking questions about how the wider match engine does things, and improvements could flow from there.  "Hey team, we're thinking of using this component to represent feature y, have a look and see what you think".  It's not like these two teams are going to sit in completely different locations and then mash their work together a few days before release.  This is probably a historic chance for SI to take a proper look at the foundations from the ground up and do things differently.  It's an incredibly important change to make, and that's before even analysing the feature itself.

8 hours ago, Truegunner said:

Personally I am always up for more inclusivity (I love all types of football so I am open to including the women's game), however I do wonder how this will be realistically implemented. Look at how EA added women's teams into FIFA they advertised their addition heavily, added the national teams and then locked down the ability to play them against the male teams in the game. Since then they have basically done nothing with these teams (only usable in tournaments and kick off) and they have been largely ignored by EA (and as a result its player base).

It's pretty clear at this stage that whatever SI's approach is - and it's likely not been decided yet - it won't be like EA's.  That's the quick, lazy, for-profit approach that, let's face it, EA are known for.  It's clear that SI are wanting to get the feature to be as good as possible before it first sees the light of day, and that's absolutely the correct thing to do.  If they half-arsed it - like EA have and continue to do, and with a number of aspects of their game - then interest would indeed be low.  A fully featured, well thought-out system is a different animal, and one I'd be really interested to try.

It's usually pretty safe to look at whatever EA do, and then imagine it'll be the complete opposite.

 

[Brother Ben]

54 minutes ago, forameuss said:

Another part that so many don't seem to focus on is that although there will be separate teams, adding something like this which makes use of the wider core is going to have benefits across the board, not just with women's football itself.  I expect - or at least hope - that it will contain, at the very least, its own version of the match engine.  Work on that may lead to asking questions about how the wider match engine does things, and improvements could flow from there.  "Hey team, we're thinking of using this component to represent feature y, have a look and see what you think".  It's not like these two teams are going to sit in completely different locations and then mash their work together a few days before release.  This is probably a historic chance for SI to take a proper look at the foundations from the ground up and do things differently.  It's an incredibly important change to make, and that's before even analysing the feature itself.

It's pretty clear at this stage that whatever SI's approach is - and it's likely not been decided yet - it won't be like EA's.  That's the quick, lazy, for-profit approach that, let's face it, EA are known for.  It's clear that SI are wanting to get the feature to be as good as possible before it first sees the light of day, and that's absolutely the correct thing to do.  If they half-arsed it - like EA have and continue to do, and with a number of aspects of their game - then interest would indeed be low.  A fully featured, well thought-out system is a different animal, and one I'd be really interested to try.

It's usually pretty safe to look at whatever EA do, and then imagine it'll be the complete opposite.

 

This was my first thought.  It could be an exciting time for the match engine in general

Edited April 13, 2022 by Brother Ben

[steviewoodman]

On 13/04/2022 at 12:12, forameuss said:

Another part that so many don't seem to focus on is that although there will be separate teams, adding something like this which makes use of the wider core is going to have benefits across the board, not just with women's football itself.  I expect - or at least hope - that it will contain, at the very least, its own version of the match engine.  Work on that may lead to asking questions about how the wider match engine does things, and improvements could flow from there.  "Hey team, we're thinking of using this component to represent feature y, have a look and see what you think".  It's not like these two teams are going to sit in completely different locations and then mash their work together a few days before release.  This is probably a historic chance for SI to take a proper look at the foundations from the ground up and do things differently.  It's an incredibly important change to make, and that's before even analysing the feature itself.

It's pretty clear at this stage that whatever SI's approach is - and it's likely not been decided yet - it won't be like EA's.  That's the quick, lazy, for-profit approach that, let's face it, EA are known for.  It's clear that SI are wanting to get the feature to be as good as possible before it first sees the light of day, and that's absolutely the correct thing to do.  If they half-arsed it - like EA have and continue to do, and with a number of aspects of their game - then interest would indeed be low.  A fully featured, well thought-out system is a different animal, and one I'd be really interested to try.

It's usually pretty safe to look at whatever EA do, and then imagine it'll be the complete opposite.

 

As a previous poster said, EA approach sucks and barely anyone uses the women. Hopefully SI will do a better approach and everyone will be able to see how often the women's leagues are played so that'll quieten down the critics and EA might pay it more attention then too. 

It'll be fun seeing the statistics after the first 12 months or so of how often people manage the women. That should be easy for SI to provide. 

Edited April 15, 2022 by steviewoodman

[akkm]

On 12/04/2022 at 01:20, herne79 said:

Ad hominems on the other hand are far more straight forward.  These are “arguments” which attack the person not their position.  By trotting out “it’s political correctness”; “it’s tokenism”; “it’s getting in early to score some brownie points and take credit” you attack SI, not what they are doing.  Such comments are generated solely by your own cynical assumptions and always say more about the person making those cynical comments than it ever will about the person (or in this case company) at which they are aimed.

Actually you are making cynical assumptions about the intent of the poster there yourself...citing politicial correctness/tokenism isn't ad hominem attack at all...of course it could be or just actually pointing out the perceived actions of tokenism/political correctness or it could be both but pointing out the action of tokenism or political correctness (for the record I'm not saying that what SI is doing) isn't an ad hominem attack necessarily but you by inferring the intent of the poster are construing it as such. 

One could even make an argument that you by accusing them of ad hominem attacks are attempting to undermine the position of those posters by actually accusing them of certain things or having a go at their personal intentions rather than the points they are attempting to make.

So you could actually be cynically trying to undermine them in this thread by pointing out intentions of an individual rather (especially given the other audience youre posturing towards) than the substance of their points which again is a little ironic given your own post ad hominem attacks above huh...are u attacking the people there to make your point

[phantombandit]

On 07/04/2022 at 05:38, MBarbaric said:

you really don't have a rough idea the war will end? it will go on for 200 years? Sure you didn't mean 2000?

It is obviously done decision, right or wrong/realistic or not, it is something SI has right to do and did it. Why insult intelligence of forumites with excuses that make no sense?

It’s not a matter of when

the war will end but how. It is likely that Russia will regress back into Cold War levels of isolation.

[steviewoodman]

Most people know that women's isn't as popular as men's, more than likely isn't as popular as a multi million pound investment in the game suggests and it more than likely won't be played that much, but at the same time, most people support it in posts because its not a good look to be against it. Thats just where we are. 

On the Russia thing above, no country stays banned forever. It might all stop tomorrow and if Russia concede enough, sports bans might be lifted following their current ones. Who knows? FM should allow players to configure things like that. 

The one thing people are overlooking is FM isn't a realistic game. The second you load it and press continue, it's your world, not the real world. You're a manager, for example. You sign x players. That's now not reality. You win a billion Champions Leagues in a row, and are happy with that but if Russia were in the game properly, you moan about lack of reality. 

Just give people an editor that allows them to change everything like this, and then everyone's happy. Easy. 

[MBarbaric]

17 ore fa, phantombandit ha scritto:

It’s not a matter of when

the war will end but how. It is likely that Russia will regress back into Cold War levels of isolation.

you are aware Soviet Union played international competitions during the cold war, right?

[phantombandit]

5 hours ago, MBarbaric said:

you are aware Soviet Union played international competitions during the cold war, right?

Yeah, but the fact that they are suspended now shows that it’s Different times. It’s arguable that our relation with Russia is even worse now than it was before. If Russia is suspended now, I don’t think them simply ending the war will be enough. They would probably have to make reparations to Ukraine which day would refuse to do, so I suspect the sanctions and the bans will continue.

[steviewoodman]

@phantombanditif you're a Russian, who has no control over what's happening in the world, how do you play FM for a bit of a escapism? 

[forameuss]

3 hours ago, steviewoodman said:

@phantombanditif you're a Russian, who has no control over what's happening in the world, how do you play FM for a bit of a escapism? 

I don't know, seeing as you've made them up, why don't you just make up an answer too?

On 16/04/2022 at 07:19, steviewoodman said:

Just give people an editor that allows them to change everything like this, and then everyone's happy. Easy. 

But that's not that easy.  The editor has come a long, long way from what it used to be - basically a timebomb you could add to your save that would inevitably go off in the future and destroy it - but it still has gaps because changing those things reliably and not completely ruining the core database is a difficult thing to do.  

And that's before even covering the stuff SI would actually want you to be able to edit in an ideal world.

[XaW]

3 hours ago, steviewoodman said:

@phantombanditif you're a Russian, who has no control over what's happening in the world, how do you play FM for a bit of a escapism? 

If the Russian people has no control over what happens in the world, then who does? It's their elected head of state who is the cause after all.

[Wolf_pd]

41 minutes ago, forameuss said:

But that's not that easy.  The editor has come a long, long way from what it used to be - basically a timebomb you could add to your save that would inevitably go off in the future and destroy it - but it still has gaps because changing those things reliably and not completely ruining the core database is a difficult thing to do.  

It is a dark art, but we can do a lot

[zindrinho]

4 hours ago, XaW said:

If the Russian people has no control over what happens in the world, then who does? It's their elected head of state who is the cause after all.

Bit off topic, but if there's only 1 candidate to vote for - did the people really elect him when he wins?

[phantombandit]

20 hours ago, steviewoodman said:

@phantombanditif you're a Russian, who has no control over what's happening in the world, how do you play FM for a bit of a escapism? 

maybe play a team that isnt russian?

I am American and I have not and will not play FM with a USA team.

[Benson_87]

On 05/04/2022 at 21:33, kepz said:

Is it really that big of a deal to you that you have to look at a rainbow flag in the crowd? Would you prefer there to be homophobic fanbases like in Brazil to add to your realism experience? 

Dunno how this sort of commentary is allowed to fly on here tbh.

Why shouldnt it? Hes just as entitled to his opinion as SI are entitled to use rainbow flags.

 

This whole cancel/block/delete anything that doesnt conform to the standard of that particular day is ludicrous.

[Benson_87]

5 hours ago, phantombandit said:

maybe play a team that isnt russian?

I am American and I have not and will not play FM with a USA team.

Excellent solution.

 

Person A would like to do x

Person B has never done x

Therefore, person A should do y