Is it time for an all new version of the game to be released, and not just another data update and a couple of new cosmetic features?

[Chakib8]

heelllll NO!!!

a new game? Buy a new game? no thanx we should appreciate the updates, stop suggesting stupid Ideas, they might be considered!!!

[jakobx]

..back to the topic

Im gonna say yes. FM is in need of another large update. For the last couple of years we have been given only tiny new additions that arent exactly worth writing about. To make things worse most of them are buggy (confidence, feeders, scouting, reports, etc) or just awful (team talks, new skin, opposition instructions, media, financial model).

We need improved match graphics so that we can see better whats going on. We need a match analyzing tool. We need a new tactics designer because no one besides the SI programmers knows what the hell is going on there and they dont want to tell anyone how it works. Who can tell me the difference between closing down 6 and 7? no one. There are tons of features FM still lacks and tons of them that are implemented poorly. I know that new features bring new bugs but its not like SI are very good at fixing old bugs anyway. ITs one of the best selling PC games, Their team is small by industry standards and its not like they are actually making a new game. IMO they should have enough money to afford a couple of extra developers if the current bunch cant handle all the work.

[Jimbokav1971]

What's the saying..........

Too many cooks.............

[Mitja]

I'm for making the features work as much as it's possibile and then move on. honestly I think if bugs could be brought to minimum, this would be a fantastic game. I can't imagine how buggy the game would be if they consantly change things like tactics or transfer systems I believe SI are on right path.

on the other side it's strange that some basic things in ME still not good enough, like positioning, movement...

[Nomis07]

I'm all for new addtions being bigger and better but I don't want it ending up with gimmicky rubbish like Fifa e.g. have a child, buy a house etc. If I wanted that I would play Sims.

Bugs are part and parcel of every single game you buy, over the past few years I have bought a couple of Champ Managers to see what they were like and returned them because they were so bloody god awful and full of bugs. This isn't to say that I think SI can relax because they are better and being better than CM is good enough, but I think that new features need to be expanded upon rather than more be added straight away.

The tactics system has come under a lot of scrutiny but compared to the old system of 3 options it has improved a lot and I honestly can't think of ways to change it that would be any better at all.

Data updates are readily available on a variety of sites so there is no need to buy the game every year but I for one find myself buying it, thinking the last one was better, trying it again and realising that it isn't as good.

[endtime]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by playmaker:

SI have to release a game each year for it to be financially viable.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are a lot of games with a longer development cycle and higher production cost which are still financially viable.

[Spagbol]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jimbokav1971:

There is sooooo much that SI could improve without adding one single new feature to the game and I for one hope that they get what is already in the game right before introducing something </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You see, I kind of agree.

Then I realise that if 8.0.2 fixes FM08 and there's no changes for FM09, rather then wait six months for the patch to fix FM09 I'm going to save £30 and just download a date update. I kind of wish I'd done that instead of buying FM08.

[Powermonger]

I think it would be a very poor business decision if SI decided not to add any new features and just fix what is already in the game. FM seems to already be taking baby steps in progressing the game and is starting to feel stale because of it.

Bug fixes should be part of patches, not for the sole reason for releasing a new version. Change is good for games, it keeps the title fresh and maintains the appeal.

FM08 to me doesn't feel that much different to FM05, which is the last FM I played. I skipped 06 and 07 because I didn't feel the 'new' features were worth getting excited about.

[Nostromo]

it is amazing and quite funny to see the 'oldies' inability or unwillingness to accept any meaningful change to the game

[Ched]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Spagbol:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jimbokav1971:

There is sooooo much that SI could improve without adding one single new feature to the game and I for one hope that they get what is already in the game right before introducing something </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You see, I kind of agree.

Then I realise that if 8.0.2 fixes FM08 and there's no changes for FM09, rather then wait six months for the patch to fix FM09 I'm going to save £30 and just download a date update. I kind of wish I'd done that instead of buying FM08. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let's think about this for a second - does anybody seriously believe 8.0.2 will fix even the majority of issues with FM08?

I suspect that the changes many want to see will not be evident until FM09, i would like nothing more than for SI to prove me wrong, but for some reason i just don't see that happening.

[Powermonger]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Tactical sliders - not one person who says they should be replaced has come up with even a remotely good alternative, let alone a better alternative. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought up an idea of tactic configuration being done by visual means, using a graphical notation system somewhat akin to the notation used in tactic books.

With current tactics, besides the different arrows available, you have no idea at a glance how a tactic is actually configured. Moving most of this to a notation system that can be altered similarly to how the current arrow system works, in conjunction with a new right-click menu, you could much easier alter things on the fly without having to keep swapping through different pages for positions or team settings.

Another benefit is you could more easily tie in the graphical notation to how you expect that setting to operate in the match engine, such as closing down. Instead of sliders, you are basically moving graphical elements which do the same thing but are more meaningful and easier to understand.

[Spagbol]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Powermonger:

FM08 to me doesn't feel that much different to FM05, which is the last FM I played. I skipped 06 and 07 because I didn't feel the 'new' features were worth getting excited about. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree, a lot of people who play the game daily between FM05 and FM08 will say differently and the engine (for better or worse) changes every game. But to me, it's feels essentially like the same girl in a different dress.

A lot of thigns like team talks; board, player and media interaction, etc rather then adding to the game have been poorly implemented so just clutter it up.

With tactics and the tactic builder being number orientated rather then feel or general knowledge orientated and the regular 'decline to comment', 'he's a big player but I feel we have adequit cover' and similar clicking it can at time feel like your working a data entry job rather then having fun playing a management game.

A lot of people have noted FM08 isn't as fun as previous incarnations but they're playing on autopilot rather then because they're loving the game currently.

It is the best football management game by a long shot and the competition have all taken routes a lot of us would rather not go down, but something does need to happen to the series to shake things up a bit.

I don't want FM09 to be sold on the 'new' features of lists of the top 10 most capped and highest goal scoring players by country.

[endtime]

Oh yeah, and another thing: I wish there was a corellation between the complaints and the reaction from the FA. As it is now, the FA "remain silent" when you complain about having a player sent off, indicating the referee's decision was incorrect, but the next day reject you appeal, saying that the red card was valid.

[endtime]

oops, wrong topic Sorry about that.

[Mister Z]

What this games need is a detailed manual of how the sliders effect the match engine and what players attributes. Creativity set on high means what for a player whit anticipation of 7 (if anticipation has an effect on creativity). The smoke screen that SI put up by there vague answers or not answering at all is one of the reasons are posting on the form.

One other enigma from the SI dungeons, What are the exact conditions for a stadium extension? When is this exact possible and what does is cost?

[rinso]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What are the exact conditions for a stadium extension? When is this exact possible and what does is cost? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

how could they possibly answer that one?? its completely different for each club and for each ground, for each league etc etc etc its even gonna be different for one club the next time they do it...

[playmaker]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by endtime:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by playmaker:

SI have to release a game each year for it to be financially viable.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are a lot of games with a longer development cycle and higher production cost which are still financially viable. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And they are made by bigger companies with more financial backing. I'm not commenting on what is viable for anyone else - SI have said it is not viable for them.

[endtime]

Bigger than Sega? Anyway, I find it hard to believe that a company that has produced a relatively cheap game (relative to other contemporary PC games), that has topped the bestseller lists for several years running, finds it financially impossible to have a yearly break. It's more likely that they are contractually obliged to release a new game every year.

Not that it makes any difference - hey, if I had a game that sold well every year regardless of the state it's in, I wouldn't take any breaks either

[playmaker]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by endtime:

Bigger than Sega? Anyway, I find it hard to believe that a company that has produced a relatively cheap game (relative to other contemporary PC games), that has topped the bestseller lists for several years running, finds it financially impossible to have a yearly break. It's more likely that they are contractually obliged to release a new game every year.

Not that it makes any difference - hey, if I had a game that sold well every year regardless of the state it's in, I wouldn't take any breaks either </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is a big difference between large publishers buying small studios and leaving them to run autonomously and large publishers setting up studios and supplying a budget.

Sega don't fund SI, SI fund SI.

Sega is responsible for the marketing of the game and as such finance that part. Development budgets are entirely down to SI.

[Powermonger]

Sounds like SI need their own 'sugar daddy' then

[Bongo-Bongo]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by playmaker:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by endtime:

Bigger than Sega? Anyway, I find it hard to believe that a company that has produced a relatively cheap game (relative to other contemporary PC games), that has topped the bestseller lists for several years running, finds it financially impossible to have a yearly break. It's more likely that they are contractually obliged to release a new game every year.

Not that it makes any difference - hey, if I had a game that sold well every year regardless of the state it's in, I wouldn't take any breaks either </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is a big difference between large publishers buying small studios and leaving them to run autonomously and large publishers setting up studios and supplying a budget.

Sega don't fund SI, SI fund SI.

Sega is responsible for the marketing of the game and as such finance that part. Development budgets are entirely down to SI. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And lets not forget that if SI did decide to relase FM every two years, it would run the risk of seeing CM and FIFA taking a sizable chunk of their market share, and quite possibly damaging the sales of the next edition.

[George Graham]

I dont think SI should throw away what they already have- after all the game is designed in a modular form to avoid them having to throw everything out the window.

BUT- boy does this game need an injection of some fresh ideas, and properly realised ones too- not little features here and there that are never realised or fleshed out properly.

[Mitja]

I think it's all about how big the competition is. I don't see FIFA as any threat to FM. not sure about CM. if there was bigger competition for manager simulation games, FM would be fantastic

[djht]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by George Graham:

I dont think SI should throw away what they already have- after all the game is designed in a modular form to avoid them having to throw everything out the window.

BUT- boy does this game need an injection of some fresh ideas, and properly realised ones too- not little features here and there that are never realised or fleshed out properly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely. I guess behind all this idealism there's a political/strategic reason why things have remained essentially the same. When SI split with eidos it kept the rights to the code. Eidos made Championship Manager 5 (which to be honest I have not played). SI on the other hand marketed Football Manager as the true 'successor' to the series by keeping things unchanged.

But in my opinion eidos has already lost all its credibility with the release of the apparently unplayable CM5. There's no reason for SI to continue this conservative path. Of course, I'm not naive enough to assume that if no changes are released, most of us die hard fans will continue to purchase every upcoming release regardless. I posted this thread with the faint hope that whilst SI is a profit driven business, it is business with some kind of heart.

[djht]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Of course, I'm not naive enough to assume that if no changes are released, most of us die hard fans won't continue to purchase every upcoming release regardless. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Eduardo]

I would like to see a 3d match engine... is anything in development?

[chopper99]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by endtime:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by playmaker:

SI have to release a game each year for it to be financially viable.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are a lot of games with a longer development cycle and higher production cost which are still financially viable. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but none of them are sports games jostling for market share with other companies making very similar types of games.

No sports game worth its salt would be released every two years, it would soon lose out to it's annually released competitors. So no, FM should not be realeased every 2 years. If you don't want to buy it every year then don't, but I think you'll be in the minority.

And yes, it would be economic suicide for SI if they did decide to release it every 2 years.

[Ched]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by chopper99:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by endtime:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by playmaker:

SI have to release a game each year for it to be financially viable.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are a lot of games with a longer development cycle and higher production cost which are still financially viable. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but none of them are sports games jostling for market share with other companies making very similar types of games.

No sports game worth its salt would be released every two years, it would soon lose out to it's annually released competitors. So no, FM should not be realeased every 2 years. If you don't want to buy it every year then don't, but I think you'll be in the minority.

And yes, it would be economic suicide for SI if they did decide to release it every 2 years. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What i've suggested previously is do what they did with one of the CMS (01/02 i think) which was basically a patched version of the previous years efforts which SI sold at a lower price - which gave them substantially more time to work on the next installment.

Don't see what's so wrong with doing this again.

[Dave C]

Ched,

Generally when a game has high costs and a long development time, there's someone footing that bill to have it run that way.

In the case of FM, it is basically funding all SI's operations. Their business plan is based on x units being sold each year at price y giving a return of z.

If you reduce x by having a 2 year development, z drops.

If you reduce y by having a reduced patch release, z drops.

Unless someone makes up that shortfall, there has to be an annual full-price release. It's pretty basic economics.

[morgantjg]

Excellent opening post.

FM has not improved since the brilliant early Championship Manager games. They truly were remarkable games, spoilt only by the weakness they displayed to wondertactics.

For years the only improvements were more leagues, and a few bolted on features, none of which really affect gameplay but merely reflect current trends in the game.

FM is a cash cow that is the result of lazy development, with no vision for the future and no ambition. The developers are more than happy to pump out the same game every year and take the money. It's worse than the FIFA exploitation ever was, because at least they spent millions improving the graphics between each game.

Personally I play the game because there is no serious alternative. Other games miss the importance of an accurate database and realistic events in game. Games like LMA Manager on the consoles have battered FM in some key areas, then been completely spoilt by having such a poor grasp of reality in the transfer market (Christiano Ronaldo to Notts Forest for £5m anyone?).

FM is a sitting duck. When someone develops a game with a proper presentation technique, with the accuracy of FM's database and realistic in-game events, FM will become redundant overnight. It will happen eventually and SI are certainly displaying no intention of ever improving the presentation element (Both the interface AND the pathetic 2d blob-athon).

[SmOkIn SkUlL]

Id have to say a definite no on this occasion.

[Dave C]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by morgantjg:

FM is a cash cow that is the result of lazy development, with no vision for the future and no ambition. The developers are more than happy to pump out the same game every year and take the money. It's worse than the FIFA exploitation ever was, because at least they spent millions improving the graphics between each game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was thinking how best to respond to that.

I'm going to settle for saying "You haven't the first clue what you are talking about"

[Kriss]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dave C:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by morgantjg:

FM is a cash cow that is the result of lazy development, with no vision for the future and no ambition. The developers are more than happy to pump out the same game every year and take the money. It's worse than the FIFA exploitation ever was, because at least they spent millions improving the graphics between each game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was thinking how best to respond to that.

I'm going to settle for saying "You haven't the first clue what you are talking about" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tbh Dave, even that's giving him too much credit.

I spent yesterday at SI Towers, believe me they know what they are about and lazy is not a word which should appear on the same page as the SI name.

[Kriss]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">When someone develops a game with a proper presentation technique, with the accuracy of FM's database and realistic in-game events, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They've been trying long enough and aren't even close.

[Ched]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dave C:

Ched,

Generally when a game has high costs and a long development time, there's someone footing that bill to have it run that way.

In the case of FM, it is basically funding all SI's operations. Their business plan is based on x units being sold each year at price y giving a return of z.

If you reduce x by having a 2 year development, z drops.

If you reduce y by having a reduced patch release, z drops.

Unless someone makes up that shortfall, there has to be an annual full-price release. It's pretty basic economics. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So how exactly did they manage it with CM?

All i'm suggesting is they do something that they have done in the past....

I don't know the stats, but when CM01/02 (or whatever the cheap one was) was released was there a significant drop in sales? I'm not saying that they don't release an FM09, just that it could be better to spend more time on new features rather than letting them out unfinished.

I am quite familiar with how business plans work - and a lot have more scope than merely relying on individual year sales, it's EVEN MORE basic economics.

[Kriss]

Ched you can't justify even the proposition of a biannual release without accurate figures, figures which you will never see.

FM08 wasn't unfinished incidentally, it had bugs that we all now know the history of.

You will also have noted the continual "nothing has changed" complaint and yet you advocate changing absolutely nothing for 2 years.

Nothing satisfies everyone because opinions are too diverse.

[Ched]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kriss:

Ched you can't justify even the proposition of a biannual release without accurate figures, figures which you will never see.

FM08 wasn't unfinished incidentally, it had bugs that we all now know the history of.

You will also have noted the continual "nothing has changed" complaint and yet you advocate changing absolutely nothing for 2 years.

Nothing satisfies everyone because opinions are too diverse. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

All i'm saying is that they've done it in the past, why can't they do it in the future?

I made no claim to know the sales figures, hence i am not trying to justify anything, it's just that SI did at one point in history, release a glorified patch, they still exist as a company, therefore it could not have bankrupt them. If miles comes here and says it nearly screwed them then i'll not suggest it again, it's just that it has happened therefore i don't think it is in anyway unreasonable of me to ask if it could happen again?

As to "FM08 wasn't unfinished incidentally" - this is my whole point - in another of my threads, Dave C pointed out that every point i'd made had been brought up in testing - my point is with an extra 12 months, how many points would i have had left to make?

Yes i've noted the "nothing has changed" - so if they compain anyway why pander to them? I know full well that something along these lines will annoy many, that's why i'm not saying "DO IT RIGHT NOW" - just merely asking why it could or couldm't be done.

Your reply was a lot more useful than trying to explain basic economics to an ex-economics student lol

[Dave C]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kriss:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dave C:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by morgantjg:

FM is a cash cow that is the result of lazy development, with no vision for the future and no ambition. The developers are more than happy to pump out the same game every year and take the money. It's worse than the FIFA exploitation ever was, because at least they spent millions improving the graphics between each game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was thinking how best to respond to that.

I'm going to settle for saying "You haven't the first clue what you are talking about" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tbh Dave, even that's giving him too much credit.

I spent yesterday at SI Towers, believe me they know what they are about and lazy is not a word which should appear on the same page as the SI name. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aye. Anyone who has been there (and that includes me) knows how dedicated those blokes are.

[Dave C]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ched:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dave C:

Ched,

Generally when a game has high costs and a long development time, there's someone footing that bill to have it run that way.

In the case of FM, it is basically funding all SI's operations. Their business plan is based on x units being sold each year at price y giving a return of z.

If you reduce x by having a 2 year development, z drops.

If you reduce y by having a reduced patch release, z drops.

Unless someone makes up that shortfall, there has to be an annual full-price release. It's pretty basic economics. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So how exactly did they manage it with CM?

All i'm suggesting is they do something that they have done in the past....

I don't know the stats, but when CM01/02 (or whatever the cheap one was) was released was there a significant drop in sales? I'm not saying that they don't release an FM09, just that it could be better to spend more time on new features rather than letting them out unfinished.

I am quite familiar with how business plans work - and a lot have more scope than merely relying on individual year sales, it's EVEN MORE basic economics. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

When they made that decision, they were a much smaller company and it was easier to do.

Today, it's a much different proposition.

This isn't that hard to figure, and I don't think you're stupid, so why are you struggling to grasp it?

I'm going for wishful thinking!

[djht]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dave C:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kriss:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dave C:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by morgantjg:

FM is a cash cow that is the result of lazy development, with no vision for the future and no ambition. The developers are more than happy to pump out the same game every year and take the money. It's worse than the FIFA exploitation ever was, because at least they spent millions improving the graphics between each game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was thinking how best to respond to that.

I'm going to settle for saying "You haven't the first clue what you are talking about" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tbh Dave, even that's giving him too much credit.

I spent yesterday at SI Towers, believe me they know what they are about and lazy is not a word which should appear on the same page as the SI name. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aye. Anyone who has been there (and that includes me) knows how dedicated those blokes are. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

His claim is that SI's direction is lazy, not that SI are made up of lazy individuals. The claim is based on his judgment of their product throughout the years, which I think is a fair basis for making the judgment.

Besides, a neutral observer's word is far more credible than that of a biased former insider. Of course if you are mates with SI you're going to utter nothing but praise for them.

[Amaroq]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by djht:

Besides, a neutral observer's word is far more credible than that of a biased former insider. Of course if you are mates with SI you're going to utter nothing but praise for them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A neutral expert's word might be - but how many of the complainants have 3-5 years of software development experience, or better, game development experience?

[Dave C]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by djht:

His claim is that SI's direction is lazy, not that SI are made up of lazy individuals. The claim is based on his judgment of their product throughout the years, which I think is a fair basis for making the judgment.

Besides, a neutral observer's word is far more credible than that of a biased former insider. Of course if you are mates with SI you're going to utter nothing but praise for them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Firstly, I'm not a "former insider" and I wouldn't say I'm "mates" with them.

Secondly, how do you know he's neutral? I think very few people are truly neutral.

I do some stuff with them on a voluntary basis as a researcher and a tester. I am a long way from offering nothing but praise, I am incredibly critical, more so than most who post here. The difference is my criticism is balanced and informed (and these days rarely takes place on this forum).

I know full well what his claim is. And I maintain it's rubbish, he doesn't know what he's talking about, and that anyone who has spent time at SI Towers would refute the assertion they were, by any definition, lazy.

[Ched]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by djht:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dave C:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kriss:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dave C:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by morgantjg:

FM is a cash cow that is the result of lazy development, with no vision for the future and no ambition. The developers are more than happy to pump out the same game every year and take the money. It's worse than the FIFA exploitation ever was, because at least they spent millions improving the graphics between each game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was thinking how best to respond to that.

I'm going to settle for saying "You haven't the first clue what you are talking about" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tbh Dave, even that's giving him too much credit.

I spent yesterday at SI Towers, believe me they know what they are about and lazy is not a word which should appear on the same page as the SI name. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aye. Anyone who has been there (and that includes me) knows how dedicated those blokes are. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

His claim is that SI's direction is lazy, not that SI are made up of lazy individuals. The claim is based on his judgment of their product throughout the years, which I think is a fair basis for making the judgment.

Besides, a neutral observer's word is far more credible than that of a biased former insider. Of course if you are mates with SI you're going to utter nothing but praise for them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read some of Dave C's posts - in no way does he "utter nothing but praise for them" - his arguments, however are a little bit more thorough than "SI are lazy"

[djht]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Amaroq:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by djht:

Besides, a neutral observer's word is far more credible than that of a biased former insider. Of course if you are mates with SI you're going to utter nothing but praise for them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A neutral expert's word might be - but how many of the complainants have 3-5 years of software development experience, or better, game development experience? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That to me is not relevant because FM is ultimately a computer game designed for the end user, a product. A game reviewer does not need to be a programmer, a film critic does not need to be a cinematographer or actor, a food critic does not need to be a chef.

[Dave C]

Ched, ignoring this silly aside, do you see my point about the difference between now and when they delayed for CM4?

Their software portfolio has expanded from 1 to about half-a-dozen games, of which only the PC FM is a major product.

Clearly that changes the business dynamic, and as an ex-economics student I'm sure you know that will have been a conscious, long-term business strategy.

[Dave C]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by djht:

That to me is not relevant because FM is ultimately a computer game designed for the end user, a product. A game reviewer does not need to be a programmer, a film critic does not need to be a cinematographer or actor, a food critic does not need to be a chef. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But a food critic needs to understand food, have a well-developed palate.

A film reviewer benefits from knowing film history.

And a game reviewer benefits from knowing something of the industry.

[djht]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dave C:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by djht:

That to me is not relevant because FM is ultimately a computer game designed for the end user, a product. A game reviewer does not need to be a programmer, a film critic does not need to be a cinematographer or actor, a food critic does not need to be a chef. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But a food critic needs to understand food, have a well-developed palate.

A film reviewer benefits from knowing film history.

And a game reviewer benefits from knowing something of the industry. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The third sentence is not analogous to the first to. Rather, the game reviewer should have vast gaming experiences so that they have other games to compare FM with. That requirement seems to be fulfilled by the poster in question considering his mentioning of LMA Manager, FIFA, early Championship Manager games etc.

[Ched]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dave C:

Ched, ignoring this silly aside, do you see my point about the difference between now and when they delayed for CM4?

Their software portfolio has expanded from 1 to about half-a-dozen games, of which only the PC FM is a major product.

Clearly that changes the business dynamic, and as an ex-economics student I'm sure you know that will have been a conscious, long-term business strategy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can see the point you are trying to make, but rather than burdens i would see the other products as merely an increased contribution to the costs that exist regardless of FM.

I appreciate their other products don't sell anywhere near aas many units, but without any figures all we can do is speculate.

[Dave C]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by djht:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dave C:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by djht:

That to me is not relevant because FM is ultimately a computer game designed for the end user, a product. A game reviewer does not need to be a programmer, a film critic does not need to be a cinematographer or actor, a food critic does not need to be a chef. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But a food critic needs to understand food, have a well-developed palate.

A film reviewer benefits from knowing film history.

And a game reviewer benefits from knowing something of the industry. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The third sentence is not analogous to the first to. Rather, the game reviewer should have vast gaming experiences so that they have other games to compare FM with. That requirement seems to be fulfilled by the poster in question considering his mentioning of LMA Manager, FIFA, early Championship Manager games etc. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The third sentence is entirely analogous.

Analogous to "He just needs to have vast gaming experience" would be "He just needs to have eaten lots" or "He just needs to have watched a lot of films"!

[Dave C]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ched:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dave C:

Ched, ignoring this silly aside, do you see my point about the difference between now and when they delayed for CM4?

Their software portfolio has expanded from 1 to about half-a-dozen games, of which only the PC FM is a major product.

Clearly that changes the business dynamic, and as an ex-economics student I'm sure you know that will have been a conscious, long-term business strategy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can see the point you are trying to make, but rather than burdens i would see the other products as merely an increased contribution to the costs that exist regardless of FM.

I appreciate their other products don't sell anywhere near aas many units, but without any figures all we can do is speculate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the company hadn't expanded, you'd be right in saying other products just contributed to existing costs.

But the company has expanded to develop those other products, meaning costs have also increased away from FM.

We know FM is comfortably the major income generator, just by working from sales charts (FM appears, the other products don't).

We know SI are a much-expanded company to meet the demands of several recent developments.

So, it's pretty fair to speculate that FM largely funds the company.