Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community

forameuss

Members+
  • Content Count

    11,654
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

1 Follower

About forameuss

  • Rank
    Reserves

Favourite Team

  • Favourite Team
    Partick Thistle

Recent Profile Visitors

8,975 profile views
  1. While that might be true, you can't really draw many conclusions talking about one player who played into his 40s, when, for every one of those, you're going to have thousands who have retired by then.
  2. I can already see it now. People flock to Stadia because of this mythical processing power, and find out it performs distinctly average. Not that that's necessarily grounds for riot, the option to be able to play on any device with an internet connection is still a big plus to have. But must admit, one of the big pulls of something like this would be to have the sort of performance you can't get without spending a lot of money. If it clocks in at the sort you can get from a mid-range laptop, that'll be pretty disappointing. Remains to be seen.
  3. Again, you're picking something you can't compare And it's ironic you trumpet your economics degree as a means of understanding a competition argument. Do you have one in software development too? No? Not that it takes one to realise that the comparisons you're trying to draw really aren't there. You know why the competition argument doesn't work? It would take even a competent developer YEARS (and probably into decades) to even come close to the product that is currently on offer. The match engine on its own is largely untouchable, and given there aren't all these companies floating around with mature match engines, it would take a stupid amount of time and resources to get something approaching that. By which time, SI have spent all that time doing the improvements they already do, meaning they'll likely never catch up They've had competition in the past, and they've murdered it. EA could have thrown millions at the problem, but they decided to just fold the product instead. The argument might have some legs if SI were doing what EA like to do and actually sit there stagnating. They could release FM with a database update alone and likely still get the same number of sales. But they don't. They continually add new features - whether they're major or not - every single year. Some mythical competition coming in doesn't change that, because... Being patronising isn't a good look for you. I didn't miss any point. There's far more room for new technology in a phone - which, again, isn't comparable in the least - than there is in a decades old game that has already added the vast majority of major features a football management game could have. You say the key reasons are "laughable", so go on then, what major features could they have added that wouldn't have been? Where's this killer app they're missing?
  4. Which is laughably bad. I wanted to like it, but...Christ it's awful. They've made career mode worse, which is poor no matter what the core of the game is. They're also demonstrably driven by pure profit to a far more insane degree than a company like SI are. Not the best comparison to use. Yes, they've reworked those things. They've also arguably made it worse. A lot of it is changes that really didn't need to be made. Maybe to appease people who think that just saying something is new is enough. What @Dagenham_Dave said was right. EA has had far more realistic competition than SI ever have, and yet they are continually criticised as one of the worst developers/publishers out there. Granted, that's hyperbolic nonsense, but it's a shining example of why this whole competition argument is so, so simplistic and shortsighted. That's really, really, really not a good comparison. Software development is a completely different idea, particularly on a game that's decades old and already has pretty much everything you could realistically ask for in the genre.
  5. If you can't understand what he would mean by complicated in this sense, then yeah, you probably should.
  6. As soon as you start going down the line of "I don't do bug reports", then it becomes hard to take a post like this seriously. Put simply, SI need a very specific set of data to be able to go after an issue. From what you're saying, it sounds like you've been very involved in discussing issues the game has, and seemingly in detail, but discussions are really not actionable from SI's point of view when it comes to bugs. You say "If the above is not enough for SI to work off from I don't know what it", well I'll tell you that it isn't, and the "what" in this case is specific pkms. That might seem like overkill, but think of it as handing someone a very intricate machine with a million moving parts, then telling them in very general terms that it's broken. It's not a great analogy, but then software development can be a very different beast. Someone can take what you say and go ahead and try and investigate, but they're already starting out with one hand tied behind their back in terms of finding what's wrong, even before they've thought about how to fix it. If you give them a pkm and a decent bug report, they'll be able to very quickly get to the issue and actually go about fixing it. That's a massive difference to just sending someone into the code on the say so of often very vague comments. I work in software development for investment banking - I'm always going to be more happy to work on something if someone comes to me saying that there's an issue with report x on trade y, and here's exact details of what we think is wrong, as opposed to someone saying "pnl is wrong". One is actionable, one is a massive ballache involving a huge amount more work. And just for information, I'm also someone who doesn't raise bug reports. Not through some haughty insistence that it isn't my job (not that you're saying that, but others have), but because I deal all day with this kind of thing at work, and to be honest I can't be arsed doing it in my spare time too. But given that view, I can't really criticise SI when I'm not willing to give them the tools they need to do their job.
  7. Which is true, but more time will usually mean a better game. I mean there's no guarantee that certain elements won't be made worse by a change elsewhere, but generally more time will mean a better product. You don't have the two versions (say, one that would have been "released" a month ago against the release candidate) to compare, so it's a pointless comparison really. At the end of the day, outside of SI no-one has any idea of the state of the game at any point in the process. They could release one riddled with bugs where they've still fixed thousands, or they could release a nigh on perfect one where they've done very little but polish for a few weeks. We can only really talk in generalities from our position. There really wasn't much that really needed explaining to show how ridiculous some of the points were, but if you have questions, fire in.
  8. In the current system, SI can likely wash their hands of things. The offending articles are hosted on the user's system, used in their own (usually) single player game. Depending on how Stadia organises things, you're likely going to need to host these things server-side. I'd imagine that brings certain legal challenges coming from that, as I can't imagine a major company is willing to store licence-beating assets.
  9. And you could if it was released earlier? Not for the first time, you're showing a remarkable misunderstanding of how software development works. Just because you don't understand it, doesn't make what you're saying any more true or sensible. But taking your points in order... That's your problem. Common sense and software development In your opinion, and even if it was true, "small" tweaks can still cause chaos with the wider modules. They still need rigorous testing. Because that would be utterly mental to do. What's to stop people curing cancer? What's slowing everything up? Or solving world hunger? You may as well have asked something as asinine as that, because you clearly have no idea.
  10. No, that makes you naive, to be honest. "The best game you can" in September is likely nowhere near the quality they want. They apparently only reached alpha stage a week or so ago. And you want to release it at least a month before that point? And that's completely disregarding the fact that their data would look hilariously out of date in a lot of regions. Are they supposed to then update the data post-release? So why are they releasing the game then? They are absolutely doing the correct thing, and to say they're "dragging on for 2 months" shows a startling misunderstanding of how development actually works.
  11. It's nice to see certain members of the community reach the sort of levels of hilarious entitlement usually reserved for the denizens of the FIFA community. Jeezo.
  12. Again, fair enough. Seems quite late to me, but I guess it depends what they class as an alpha. Would've thought they'd be in some kind of private beta by now, but maybe they skip that given the public one. Who knows. Well, SI do, but they're not going to tell anyone here for obvious reasons.
  13. Fair enough, I stand corrected. But I wouldn't hold my breath for an answer from SI. You'll be waiting a long time. Likely better asking Miles directly on Twitter
  14. It's out in a month. I'd imagine it's far beyond that stage.
  15. Likely nowhere near enough to make it worthwhile, as they found out when they released it previously. Which is why they've never gone back.
×
×
  • Create New...