Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community

forameuss

Members
  • Content count

    9,759
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

About forameuss

  • Rank
    Third Team

Favourite Team

  • Favourite Team
    Partick Thistle
  1. No-one can offer you any opinion on FM18 given that no-one knows anything about it. Download the free demo for FM17 and form an opinion on that yourself.
  2. Controversial Suggestion

    They already put updates and improvements towards their next version, and they haven't given it away for free. They've received the money for a copy, and use that to fund continuous development. The only way you'd see any benefit financially is if the subscription model cost more. Can't see that being a popular decision. There's also the fact that even this "steady" stream of income (which isn't guaranteed) is a lot lower than what they're used to. They're currently built around the way they develop, implementing this is a massive sea change for them, and I'm not convinced there's too much benefit. That's how you play, and that's fair enough, but it's by no means the consensus. I get the same feeling of not much point prior to a new version, but more a few weeks before the new one comes, not months. Doubt I'm alone in that (but then you're not either). All I meant was that there's plenty of people who refuse to start proper saves until certain updates drop. How do these people react when, under your suggestion, these updates are coming much more frequently? How do they react when these more frequent updates don't fix what they were waiting for, or haven't been tested to the same degree because there simply isn't enough time? Answered kind of in the previous part. some people talk about only starting their save in January "once the bugs have been ironed out". Your method has an even more fluid base. After the transfer window update you can be fairly sure that the game you play will not be updated and move the goalposts, so you're free to start. That all changes if you implement this. You say it would reward players with "a greater discount". So are you pricing this subscription at lower than it would cost someone to buy the full game? Again, why would SI go for that? You're substituting a large income at a set point in the year for a non-guaranteed one that is smaller. And I'm not sure that generally you're really describing something that is unique to your way of releasing. The current method has committed followers, and will remain so. People can still "come aboard" by buying the game as it is, sight unseen or by trying the free demo. You're essentially using it as a low-cost demo that benefits from updates. I don't doubt that there would be some benefits to users with this, but I'm not really seeing any benefit to it for SI. Can't see anything other than their profits going down from it, which will directly affect the quality of any future updates or titles. A snowball. EDIT: But thanks for actually discussing it, and I mean that. Plenty seem to take any kind of critical comment on an idea as some kind of personal slight. I'm happy to be convinced about any feature if it's argued well enough, as long as they're prepared for holes to be shot in it.
  3. Controversial Suggestion

    There's a certain disconnect between your idea and your supposed benefits. Why does a subscription model mean that improvements could be released on the fly? There's plenty of steps in there missing. Why does it encourage to start saves more frequently? From the way people talk, the prospect of a more fluid base is more likely to delay people starting rather than encourage. Databases from previous seasons presumably won't be allowed due to licensing - that's why they can't sell previous editions on Steam when the new one comes out. Licensing would probably cover your other points too. The one question that comes up when this has been brought up is this - what's in it for SI? What makes them look at this idea and think that it's the right way to go?
  4. It's something that can change, but it's a pretty opaque process. I managed in Gibraltar and requested again and again, getting the council rejects planning permission message for years until they finally granted permission. Not sure if there's anything you can do, don't think so. Just keep requesting.
  5. [Suggestion] Your own Salary

    There aren't many things you could suggest that would have absolutely zero chance of being included, but you've found one. So much so that it gets its own mention in the stickied thread on this very board None of this is ever going to be added. Ever.
  6. FM18 suggestion box

    More likely for FM19 now. FM18 is very, very unlikely to be getting anything new at this stage, everything will be almost confirmed.
  7. The OP literally said... Where he/she suggests being a chairman and spending your own money. That's what I was referring to. Then I talked about the coaching course part separately.
  8. They already did release it for consoles and it bombed. Funnily enough someone asked Miles on Twitter this very thing and he listed a few barriers for entry. Didn't say it would never happen but doubt it's on their radar.
  9. From the stickied thread on this forum... The last points won't happen obviously. Paying for your own coaching course is slightly different though. Probably not really fair that you can't do it but coaches can. I guess it might be down to you being the manager, and they don't want you to necessarily be able to disappear off on a coaching course you self-funded. Maybe just needs better communication as to the reason for rejection, not just "there's no money"
  10. I know, I was raging. Miles busted in last night with a mask on and demanded my money. I was shocked. I tried to tell him that it was my choice what I did with my money, but he just put a boxed copy of FM17 in a sock and went all Scum on me. Country's gone to the dogs. At least there's white knights like you keeping the faith against these nasty, nasty developers. I'm very, very sure you're the only one doing this.
  11. I don't think they could do anything that would make me not pre-order. I've not enjoyed or got into previous versions as much, but still probably get more hours out of it than most games, and the fact it doesn't need 100% attention suits the time I'll actually get to play it. I'll probably pre-order either the day before the offer ends, or forget and end up paying full price. Before the beta anyway.
  12. Exactly what it says. Almost all coding for new and improved features will complete this week, and they'll move into a more testing phase, with any further development focused on fixing these results rather than doing anything new.
  13. Best to raise it in the bugs forum, should definitely accept one,
  14. If this was the extent of their marketing, I could maybe see your point, but this is an opening salvo, purely telling you the game exists, when it'll be out, and that you'll get 25% off it. They also give you a decent beta option - as they have for years - where you're effectively getting the full game given how little changes between that point and full release. If you're referring to some of the more nefarious uses of pre-order culture, then SI are a million miles away from anything like that. There's no timed exclusives, no gimmicky releases, no vastly different store exclusives, and enough good will built up over decades of providing the title to earn trust.
  15. Imagine getting absolutely raging over a completely optional pre-order. Credit to SI - they listened to the problems people had with last year's release and addressed them, giving what amounts to probably around a tenner off a full-price game, even if you wait until quite close to release. Really struggling to see anything they've done wrong here.
×