Should Football Manager switch to a release every 2 years?

[sirgiorgio]

New features in FM15 (in brief):

- New UI

- Tracksuit vs Tactical manager

- Scouting improvements

- Overhauled animations for 3D match engine, a couple of new roles.

- Tunnel interviews

How many people bought FM15 just because of these new features?

"FM Season 14/15" (version 14.x + database update): no new features, but basically a new, improved, updated version of FM14.

How many people would have bought that?

And how many people buy FM every year, just because "it's FM"?

I think new is not always better, and this "endless beta testing" is becoming counter-productive, and a different strategy is needed. But I may be wrong...

And please, do not compare FM to GTA, it's worse than the car analogy...

[milnerpoint]

What endless BETA testing? There is no such thing going on, not unless we are saying every single game released is done so in a BETA form now a days.

For the record the new scouting set up forced my hand this year, i was on the fence about buying the new one until i saw how that would work.

[Smurf]

I'd be happy to go on a "Cloud Membership" and pay monthly/yearly a set fee.

I'd pay €5 a month for FM and if they released patches and new versions of the game etc. all year round.

€5 a month = €60 in total per year. But I wouldn't mind that, considering you can buy the game for €40 or something like that.

A lot of software companies are going that route.

[xambo]

If SI keeps the game fresh yearly with major improvements then I see no reason to stop releasing yearly.

If for some reason the releases stop being fresh and becomes repetitive then it might be wise to make it two yearly.

As for now I think SI once stated they have so many additions and improvements for many installments to come.

[forameuss]

I'd be happy to go on a "Cloud Membership" and pay monthly/yearly a set fee.

I'd pay €5 a month for FM and if they released patches and new versions of the game etc. all year round.

€5 a month = €60 in total per year. But I wouldn't mind that, considering you can buy the game for €40 or something like that.

A lot of software companies are going that route.

While it's definitely a new avenue companies are going down, would this be something that suited SI in their current form? Obviously they could change, but it seems that you'd have no real difference between that and what happens now, only you'd be paying up to double the money for it spread over the year.

Obviously with the extra money, they could perhaps expand, which would lead to maybe fixing things quicker and getting that side expedited, but I'm not entirely sure that would happen. I honestly don't think that money is an issue for SI though - they seem to prefer the smaller team idea, and I can't blame them. I've worked at one of the largest world investment banks, and now at a much, much, much smaller software company. Guess which one gives you a better working atmosphere for actually getting things done? More people isn't always a great thing.

Still though, it's one of the less offensive ideas. I don't think SI would go down that route, but I could see them doing that much more than going down the biennial route.

[Kriss]

Since FM split from Eidos their development/release cycle hasn't changed so maybe they should just announce that it is what we get and is going to remain so.

To any of us who've been around FM for a while that doesn't need stating but every year we get the same cycle of abuse and criticism from people who don't realise that it's the norm.

To clarify, release is normally Oct/Nov with the recent addition of pre release Beta.

For the next 4 months approx (up until the final Jan window data release) SI continue to develop the ME and respond to as many bug reports as they can in the various modules of the game.

During this period they will even completely change something which has proved universally unpopular (though that's rare for obvious reasons)

During this period the game is completely playable in the technical sense of the word but still SI address any serious issues as quickly as they can via hot fixes and sometimes larger updates.

The claim that the game isn't finished until that final update is a fair one and it's also fair to say that it makes sense not to get the game until then because it will also be cheaper, BUT, if you wait till then you don't get much input into resolving any issues (entirely your choice)

SI could do what most developers do, release the game on release day and say we'll fix critical (crash) bugs only, other than that "see you next year"

I like the current methodology because it shows SI's commitment and does ensure we end up with a very good game, I don't like the alternative above and I'm positive SI would never adopt it.

So why won't they just say that what we have is the official policy so nobody can be in any doubt and can make their choices accordingly (it's what happens anyway fgs )

[ManagerFootball]

Can a mod explain why my post has been deleted?

seems pretty shady to me if this is common practice.

No they cannot. This forum is well and truly controlled with an agenda behind it....protect and/or increase sales as much as possible, and to hell with loyal customers because we can receive those nice infractions then they can point at us and say 'Look there is the bad guy'.

And you are correct this kind of practice is very very common. Just seeing how active moderators are demonstrate the control and supression they feel they need around here to help optimize sales figures.

[ggeorgiou01]

Yes I think they should, but they will not because at the end of the day they are a business and they will lose money by doing this.

[Neil Brock]

I don't see how publishing just every second year could do any good for anyone :confused:

SI would make less money and would accordingly have to spend less on improving the game. More development time might mean less bugs, but the overall progress of the game would suffer, because there will actually be LESS development time over two years, not more.

SI would get less feedback. Our feedback is the most valuable source of input when it comes to improving the game and dealing with bugs. For the lack of feedback one would have to expect any biannual release to be afected by bugs as much as the annual one.

There is no positive for the user too. Buying the game just in every second year will lead to a better game than buying every time with a biannual release.

This sums it up for me, from a personal perspective.

[ManagerFootball]

Neil, is there any legitimate reason as to why I cannot compare FM2015 to Windows 8 on these forums? I read the house rules and am really really up to date on that side of things. I cannot for the life of me understand why my posts keep being deleted as there is no feedback, which in most places on earth could be considered a tad shady.

[Smurf]

I'd still pay about €5 a month to have it cloud based and constantly updated. And I mean more tweaks and patches after February.

Be cool to get an updated patch of database/players/clubs etc. with reputations so you could keep on playing FM 15 next year using a newer database if you wanted to.

Of course you'd still get FM16 but after all you're paying €5 a month which is €60 a year. So you get a little extra addition for your money.

I already pay for a Netflix account by the month, a CC by the month, and I'm happy with that.

Maybe the guys paying €5 a month could get early beta accesses etc. I dunno - throw a few things in to sweeten the deal.

[Boltman]

The claim that the game isn't finished until that final update is a fair one and it's also fair to say that it makes sense not to get the game until then because it will also be cheaper, BUT, if you wait till then you don't get much input into resolving any issues (entirely your choice)

This is perfectly true, but the disillusionment comes from the fact that you repeatedly report issues like the fact penalty shootouts routinely finish 37-36, not once in twenty game years have you ever witnessed a penalty kick miss the target completely, Scottish weather and attendances are still hugely unrealistic for the umpteenth year running, and yet in the final patch before SI stop supporting you get 'tweaked finances of Outer Mongolian 4th division clubs'.

I've given up reporting the Scottish issue because I did so for years and it still goes on. It's not like it's an obscure league or that Scotland has some sort of mystery climate. Crap climate I'll grant you.

[ScotchWhisky]

Most pointless thread in history! Go on!

Because it won't happen or because you disagree? Certainly not the latter as it's about a 50/50 split on the forums where most of the diehards reside..

I don't see how publishing just every second year could do any good for anyone :confused:

SI would make less money and would accordingly have to spend less on improving the game. More development time might mean less bugs, but the overall progress of the game would suffer, because there will actually be LESS development time over two years, not more.

SI would get less feedback. Our feedback is the most valuable source of input when it comes to improving the game and dealing with bugs. For the lack of feedback one would have to expect any biannual release to be afected by bugs as much as the annual one.

There is no positive for the user too. Buying the game just in every second year will lead to a better game than buying every time with a biannual release. What's the point? Like, really !?!

btw I just buy every second edition (but for other reasons) and apart from not being able to post here on the current version (as I leave out the uneven years) and apart from being unable to get valuable info on it in here as all feedback is directed to the bulk thread, I shall have a better FM16 than I would have if SI had not published FM15 in between

I don't feel they would get less feedback as there are plenty of issues not squashed during the current development cycle. It's not like these forums go dead six months after release. I also don't think they would lose that much more money when you consider not everyone buys every year anyways (I would love for there to somehow be a stat on this). It also depends on how their company is sitting financially. Do they have extra money in the bank that constantly grows? Do they pay it all out to all their staff every year? Is there an owner or owners who pay their employees and just rake in the profits? I do not know their organizational structure, but I feel they would still be in the black even with going to a biennial release.

The present bug that has made all my information, except status (homegrown, injured, loan, etc), disappear from the tactics screen. The injury indicator will come come back if I switch to another screen, but as soon as I try to move it so more of my information returns, that too disappears again. In other words, it has rendered my present save virtually unplayable as I am not going to manually sift through all that information. I have reported this issue to the bugs forum last night to which it still has not been responded to (although some other topics appeared to deal with a similar situation). This bug falls in the category of ridiculous.

New features in FM15 (in brief):

- New UI

- Tracksuit vs Tactical manager

- Scouting improvements

- Overhauled animations for 3D match engine, a couple of new roles.

- Tunnel interviews

How many people bought FM15 just because of these new features?

I doubt too many. The interface is ugly, though I admit I do enjoy the manager actually having attributes that improve over time.

"FM Season 14/15" (version 14.x + database update): no new features, but basically a new, improved, updated version of FM14.

How many people would have bought that?

In my suggestion, it wouldn't be 14/15. It would just be, for example, 14 with an update for the '15 database. I think for a cheap price, many would have payed for it. Many people prefer official content over modified content.

And how many people buy FM every year, just because "it's FM"?

I think new is not always better, and this "endless beta testing" is becoming counter-productive, and a different strategy is needed. But I may be wrong...

And please, do not compare FM to GTA, it's worse than the car analogy...

I believe a lot do buy it just because it's FM. But I believe they are in the vast minority when you leave these forums.

If SI keeps the game fresh yearly with major improvements then I see no reason to stop releasing yearly.

If for some reason the releases stop being fresh and becomes repetitive then it might be wise to make it two yearly.

As for now I think SI once stated they have so many additions and improvements for many installments to come.

Let's compare '13 to '14. I did not play '14, but the selling point of it was 1,000 improvements. I've asked this before. How many of those improvements are simply improvements to a working, but somewhat flawed ME and how many were actually otherwise noticeable improvements? The graphics on the 3d engine have been improved greatly. I don't know if that's more from '14 or more from '15, but it does look nice. Although, not something most care about. We don't buy this game for graphics, afterall. When I first signed up to these forums, I still saw many people say they only use the 2d match engine as things seemed to work better with that compared to the 3d engine.

This year we get our RPG element to where our managers come with their own attributes and personalities. Great. I actually love that. But that could not have been that hard to implement and is something that could have easily been included in a biennial release.

If I were to install Worldwide Soccer Manager '09 and compare it today, how much difference would I really see beyond the new, ugly interface? The core of the game is the same. The most noticeable change since then that I can think of is additional interaction options. For example, I don't think '09 included tones for how you converse (or if it did, there were less options). But I feel like I am essentially playing the same game that I picked up sometime in the middle of '09.

[Some Guy!]

If I were to install Worldwide Soccer Manager '09 and compare it today, how much difference would I really see beyond the new, ugly interface? The core of the game is the same. The most noticeable change since then that I can think of is additional interaction options. For example, I don't think '09 included tones for how you converse (or if it did, there were less options). But I feel like I am essentially playing the same game that I picked up sometime in the middle of '09.

There are some quite noticeable differences to this game in comparison to FM09, many in the way the actual game world works. It's not all press conferences (although they feel like padding features).

[keithfc]

meaningless. Even the sales every 2 year's revenue can be same as the sales every year, full of bugs also exist. It is not because of lack of time , but other factors

[ScotchWhisky]

There are some quite noticeable differences to this game in comparison to FM09, many in the way the actual game world works. It's not all press conferences (although they feel like padding features).

I actually just installed FM '09 and loaded it up. It sure does look different, but I couldn't get very far because a bug exists (perhaps due to the newer Windows version I now use) where when I started unemployed, the two teams that offered me jobs only offered me $0 per week. There was no way to increase the offer and no way to accept the offer. I should have just started with a team. Either way, it still seems to me the core is the same. You select the nations you want to be playable (of course, the number is no longer limited to just three), select the depth of the nations (that has not changed for Germany, Norway, or Sweden in the past six years), create a manager profile, either start coaching at a place or start unemployed, if the latter then apply for a job after being given an available list, work for a team, set-up tactics (which have become more in depth), scout players, arrange friendlies, conduct transfers, play matches, make board requests (most of which are still the same from '09), etc.

I don't fault them for not changing the core much. There are only so many things that can be done to something in a sports genre... I'd personally like to have the ability to gain partial ownership of the team or become part of the board so you can adjust ticket prices, put on promotions, and potentially even move the team or change the team name/colors. Maybe even be able to use your salary to buy a lower league team outright and hire a manager. Something like that would be positive and would separate the game from previous versions (or at least recent versions as perhaps this was possible in some older versions and I just don't know it). Right now the basic formula is the same and I am not sure how anyone can justify buying it over and over again each year unless they do it simply to support SI or simply out of respect for the game itself.

[themadsheep2001]

I actually just installed FM '09 and loaded it up. It sure does look different, but I couldn't get very far because a bug exists (perhaps due to the newer Windows version I now use) where when I started unemployed, the two teams that offered me jobs only offered me $0 per week. There was no way to increase the offer and no way to accept the offer. I should have just started with a team. Either way, it still seems to me the core is the same. You select the nations you want to be playable (of course, the number is no longer limited to just three), select the depth of the nations (that has not changed for Germany, Norway, or Sweden in the past six years), create a manager profile, either start coaching at a place or start unemployed, if the latter then apply for a job after being given an available list, work for a team, set-up tactics (which have become more in depth), scout players, arrange friendlies, conduct transfers, play matches, make board requests (most of which are still the same from '09), etc.

I don't fault them for not changing the core much. There are only so many things that can be done to something in a sports genre... I'd personally like to have the ability to gain partial ownership of the team or become part of the board so you can adjust ticket prices, put on promotions, and potentially even move the team or change the team name/colors. Maybe even be able to use your salary to buy a lower league team outright and hire a manager. Something like that would be positive and would separate the game from previous versions (or at least recent versions as perhaps this was possible in some older versions and I just don't know it). Right now the basic formula is the same and I am not sure how anyone can justify buying it over and over again each year unless they do it simply to support SI or simply out of respect for the game itself.

You shouldn't assume people feel the same way about the game you do. Everyone will have their own reasons for buying it (or not buying it), and why they do or dont' shouldnt and doesn't matter to anyone else.

The ME is the core of the game, and it is VASTLY different to 09.

[Kriss]

I actually just installed FM '09 and loaded it up.

How did FMC work then? oh wait! as the insane sheep said, your tastes are yours, don't presume to speak for anybody but yourself

[ScotchWhisky]

I don't deny the match engine has changed a lot. Of course it has.... it's been six years! But the basic game concept is the same and the yearly ME changes are not enough to justify buying it annually for many people. Of course the fanatics will buy every game annually. Just like some fanatics buy every Assassin's Creed game, every Madden game, or every Call of Duty game. Even if none of their formulas generally change much from year to year (but can over multi-year spans). Though at least the former most and the latter most have different storylines. And I guess the Call of Duty example is kind of bad as they have two teams that generally alternate their releases, thus their games are essentially biennially released as well.

[Kriss]

Don't worry about it what we have works for everybody, you can buy every year or every two years if you want and if as you say nothing much changes it only matters to the person buying.

[ScotchWhisky]

Don't worry about it what we have works for everybody, you can buy every year or every two years if you want and if as you say nothing much changes it only matters to the person buying.

Except every other year I buy it this way is loaded with bugs. The tactics interface issue I have reported has made my save virtually unplayable.

[Kriss]

Except every other year I buy it this way is loaded with bugs. The tactics interface issue I have reported has made my save virtually unplayable.

Ah but this way it'll get fixed at least, if they went two yearly they wouldn't be able to afford 4 months worth of support so it would be a case of take what you get on release day and suck it up.

Plus you'd have all those out of work devs begging outside Old street tube station

[Lawlore]

I don't fault them for not changing the core much. There are only so many things that can be done to something in a sports genre... I'd personally like to have the ability to gain partial ownership of the team or become part of the board so you can adjust ticket prices, put on promotions, and potentially even move the team or change the team name/colors. Maybe even be able to use your salary to buy a lower league team outright and hire a manager. Something like that would be positive and would separate the game from previous versions (or at least recent versions as perhaps this was possible in some older versions and I just don't know it). Right now the basic formula is the same and I am not sure how anyone can justify buying it over and over again each year unless they do it simply to support SI or simply out of respect for the game itself.

There is a market for a football management game of that type, no doubt about it, but that isn't the game that FM is, and people buy it on those terms, fully accepting that- that's not the appeal of the game. It'd take a dramatic shift not just in terms of focus, but in terms of overall emphasis, for FM to incorporate things like that, especially to do so to the depth that the series has become known for. FM puts you in the manager's seat- you are the manager, a cog in the system of the club, and with the exception of FML, that has always been the case.

What's needed is a half-decent you-are-the-chairman-type game, and at the moment, one doesn't exist. But that game isn't and probably won't ever be FM.

[Bittah Dreamer]

The problem people have, which is where almost all frustration comes from, and where this thread came from, is with blatant and obvious bugs. It is accepted that complex games will have bugs but it is expected that the most obvious ones will be found before release.

FM always releases with bugs like promotions don't work, players ask for something then don't want it immediately after, players moaning about irrational things, wages going from 10k to 150k, defenders not following instructions etc.

No other game is released with fundamental bugs and this is what frustrates FM fans.

I've played the beta for the last two years and haven't found any fundamental bugs at all, or anything which prevented me enjoying the game (except my inability to settle on a team or tactic this year but that's on me).

And given the huge size of the database, the infinite number of variables and a complex match engine that's trying to facilitate and replicate an infinite number of tactics and variables, I would say the number of bugs or kinks in the MÉ is to be expected, and can only ever be ironed out once stress tested by end users en masse.

[sirgiorgio]

The ME is the core of the game, and it is VASTLY different to 09.

From a different perspective, that's exactly my point.

The Match Engine is the core of the game, and it shouldn't change so drastically from one update (patch) to the other. If there's one thing that should remain rock-solid and (hopefully) unchanged from October to February, that's the ME. "Out-dated", ugly-looking, limited, whatever, but if the very core of the game is so fragile, then the whole game will suffer from that.

You don't start building the first floor if you are not sure the foundation is solid. Of course, bad things happen, but releasing each and every update with a list of KNOWN issues, some of which related to (once again) the very core of the game... Do I not like that!

"The update is ready when it's ready", you guys say.

"The game is ready when it's ready", I say. Until then, you'll play with the "last stable version".

[forameuss]

From a different perspective, that's exactly my point.

The Match Engine is the core of the game, and it shouldn't change so drastically from one update (patch) to the other. If there's one thing that should remain rock-solid and (hopefully) unchanged from October to February, that's the ME. "Out-dated", ugly-looking, limited, whatever, but if the very core of the game is so fragile, then the whole game will suffer from that.

You don't start building the first floor if you are not sure the foundation is solid. Of course, bad things happen, but releasing each and every update with a list of KNOWN issues, some of which related to (once again) the very core of the game... Do I not like that!

"The update is ready when it's ready", you guys say.

"The game is ready when it's ready", I say. Until then, you'll play with the "last stable version".

Fairly sensible to say so, and I can completely see your point, but saying that they should keep the ME constant is automatically saying that it should be kept bugged. The ME will always be bugged in some way, so keeping it constant removes any hope of those getting fixed until the next iteration. I guess they could find an "acceptable" version of ME, but then one man's treasure is another man's trash.

If it's between the ME always staying the same and fixing a bug at the expense of a smaller one coming up while the ME itself gets "better" then I'll take the latter. But can completely see your point on the other side.

[ScotchWhisky]

There is a market for a football management game of that type, no doubt about it, but that isn't the game that FM is, and people buy it on those terms, fully accepting that- that's not the appeal of the game. It'd take a dramatic shift not just in terms of focus, but in terms of overall emphasis, for FM to incorporate things like that, especially to do so to the depth that the series has become known for. FM puts you in the manager's seat- you are the manager, a cog in the system of the club, and with the exception of FML, that has always been the case.

What's needed is a half-decent you-are-the-chairman-type game, and at the moment, one doesn't exist. But that game isn't and probably won't ever be FM.

Do you think that if they potentially stopped messing with things that are not broken (such as the older interface), then perhaps they could incorporate a Chairman aspect as well? I mean, they have already expanded you into a coaching role. In this version, your persona can actually help train players, whereas they could not in at least FM '13. I imagine as you manage higher level teams, you may not want to directly take part in training, but it is completely realistic for that to be the case for a lower level club. So why not expand the game in a new direction? Fix some ME bugs and issues in future versions, but change the game a lot by adding a chairman role. Leave things like interface, training, etc alone for a couple years while implementing this new direction.

[cleaner475]

Do you think that if they potentially stopped messing with things that are not broken (such as the older interface), then perhaps they could incorporate a Chairman aspect as well? I mean, they have already expanded you into a coaching role. In this version, your persona can actually help train players, whereas they could not in at least FM '13. I imagine as you manage higher level teams, you may not want to directly take part in training, but it is completely realistic for that to be the case for a lower level club. So why not expand the game in a new direction? Fix some ME bugs and issues in future versions, but change the game a lot by adding a chairman role. Leave things like interface, training, etc alone for a couple years while implementing this new direction.

It's called Football Manager, not Football Chairman.

SI have repeatedly stated there will never be chairman aspects in the game, owning clubs, selling shares etc....

[ScotchWhisky]

It's called Football Manager, not Football Chairman.

SI have repeatedly stated there will never be chairman aspects in the game, owning clubs, selling shares etc....

Who cares about the game title? Title and scope can be changed. And just because they say "never" doesn't mean that things don't change.

[themadsheep2001]

Who cares about the game title? Title and scope can be changed. And just because they say "never" doesn't mean that things don't change.

Well SI care about the game title, they have repeatedly and explicitly said they have no interest in going down that route, and this was again repeated by Miles right before the launch of FM15. Given that they have got various bits of planning up until FM20, it's almost certainly not going to happen in the next 5 years.

[Methos]

They would need to double the price, because you can't just halve your sales and hope to survive.

The only thing they could do without a massive price hike is move to a subscription model of the game (which I doubt would be well received) or remain as it is.

I *really* doubt survive is the word you are looking for. Companies of that scale aren't struggling to survive. They are struggling to increase their vast profits.

[themadsheep2001]

I *really* doubt survive is the word you are looking for. Companies of that scale aren't struggling to survive. They are struggling to increase their vast profits.

You seriously think halving sales would not have an impact on staff, and therefore the game itself?

[cleaner475]

Who cares about the game title? Title and scope can be changed. And just because they say "never" doesn't mean that things don't change.

Because its a football management game, not a football chairman game.

From your attitude its sounds like you are relatively new to the franchise, but FM will never go down the chairman route, it's been stated many times as themadsheep says.

[cleaner475]

I *really* doubt survive is the word you are looking for. Companies of that scale aren't struggling to survive. They are struggling to increase their vast profits.

Football Manager isn't FIFA. It doesn't even sell 1 million copies per year. How much does Sega actually make per sale, around £15-£20 would be my guess, not really a lot is it? Then you have to factor in the costs of development, publishing, adverting etc.

I doubt FM would be profitable with half it's sales gone.

[HUNT3R]

You seriously think halving sales would not have an impact on staff, and therefore the game itself?

Exactly. Just the increase in sales in the last couple of years, meant the SI team actually increased a little. Halving it would be crippling.

[Methos]

You seriously think halving sales would not have an impact on staff, and therefore the game itself?

My objection was restricted to the word "survival". I believe the makers of football manager are highly into profit and are not "surviving".

I avoided being specific, but if you can find the 50 euros worth in steam game, 25 euros in other retailers, that reinforces my beliefs about vast profits or at least sort of financial flexibility. Or are the retailers making a loss at the 25 euros price?

[Kriss]

My objection was restricted to the word "survival". I believe the makers of football manager are highly into profit and are not "surviving".

I avoided being specific, but if you can find the 50 euros worth in steam game, 25 euros in other retailers, that reinforces my beliefs about vast profits or at least sort of financial flexibility. Or are the retailers making a loss at the 25 euros price?

You need business lessons? Steam are required to sell above a certain price to allow high street retailers to compete on favourable terms, otherwise they could undercut everybody and monopolise FM sales.

FM is certainly one of Sega's most profitable products but that doesn't translate to anything other than normal video game prices (FM doesn't inflate much each year either)

All SI staff are Sega employees including Miles, they get salaries. and the only way FM profits affect SI is that they are allowed to employ more staff if profitability improves (which it has done over the last few years)

[forameuss]

My objection was restricted to the word "survival". I believe the makers of football manager are highly into profit and are not "surviving".

I avoided being specific, but if you can find the 50 euros worth in steam game, 25 euros in other retailers, that reinforces my beliefs about vast profits or at least sort of financial flexibility. Or are the retailers making a loss at the 25 euros price?

FM is nowhere near the level of profits as the top of the industry. First, it sells at a much lower price point. Console games now come in around £55-60, so they have to sell two copies for every one of a AAA title. Then there's the fact that it's an extremely niche game.

Do you really think SI have a small team because Ov and Paul (and other main stakeholders) just love these "vast" profits and don't want to spend on extra developers? They'll be making a nice profit, but if it was in the realms you seem to be hinting at, that would all be ploughed back into building up the team. That's not just business sense, it's common sense.

[Bittah Dreamer]

I dont know about vast majority buying it every year, perhaps vast majority of those you know, me personally, I have switched to buying every 2 years (and I haven't yet bought FM2015) simply because by the time a new release comes out I've not "finished" with my long term save from a previous iteration due to lack of time.

I voted for every year on the poll, but I could perhaps envision a two-year cycle. Say the base game normally costs £30 from most stores, a 2-year edition would probably be hiked to £40 with a £10 DLC for the next years database update. Obviously sales and cdkey stores would mean some would get it cheaper than that, but in theory it could sort of work. Although how many would the extra price put off I wonder, even knowing it meant a game supported for longer?

Either way, subscription model definitely would make no sense as the loss of save-game compatability is a part of the reason they are allowed to make changes between releases.

I do think they are better off carrying on with the current format.

Who would actually buy the official database update though with the likes of LFCMarshall around?

The only way they could ensure any significant income from database updates would be too do away with the editor and block third party updates - but that would likely alienate a lot of fans and further harm sales.

[forameuss]

Who would actually buy the official database update though with the likes of LFCMarshall around?

The only way they could ensure any significant income from database updates would be too do away with the editor and block third party updates - but that would likely alienate a lot of fans and further harm sales.

Very good point. And I'd say that it would do a bit more than alienate fans if they did that. They'd be cutting their own throats doing something like that. Guess it's good that it's not something they'd ever consider then!

[GabrieleGallagher]

206 vs 206 !

Incredible.

[Smurf]

Who would actually buy the official database update though with the likes of LFCMarshall around?

The only way they could ensure any significant income from database updates would be too do away with the editor and block third party updates - but that would likely alienate a lot of fans and further harm sales.

I'd prefer an official download and I would pay for it.

I am playing FM12 at the moment, and if I got a new database and new club reputations etc. that represented todays world I'd be gladly paying for it.

[ScotchWhisky]

I'd prefer an official download and I would pay for it.

I am playing FM12 at the moment, and if I got a new database and new club reputations etc. that represented todays world I'd be gladly paying for it.

That would actually be a way SI could make some extra income. Sell database updates for older versions. I wouldn't think it would take too much time to convert the newest database to an older version. I know attributes have changed some over the iterations, but there is likely some formula they could implement to fill for the altered attributes without manually doing it for each version.

[cleaner475]

That would actually be a way SI could make some extra income. Sell database updates for older versions. I wouldn't think it would take too much time to convert the newest database to an older version. I know attributes have changed some over the iterations, but there is likely some formula they could implement to fill for the altered attributes without manually doing it for each version.

Again, as pointed out above there just wouldn't be that much interest with LFCMarshall's well known updates available for free. I'm sure some people would prefer an official version, just not enough to make it a profitable venture.

[Bittah Dreamer]

That would actually be a way SI could make some extra income. Sell database updates for older versions. I wouldn't think it would take too much time to convert the newest database to an older version. I know attributes have changed some over the iterations, but there is likely some formula they could implement to fill for the altered attributes without manually doing it for each version.

It wouldn't actually result in extra income - it would actually be more likely to reduce it if anything.

They wouldn't really be able to charge much for a simple data update, and by providing it there would be less incentive for people to upgrade to new versions. Particularly if the likely customer base for this is the likes of Eugene Tyson who is still on a version from three years ago without an official update. If he got one, what chance at all would there be of him shelling out for a full price game?

And their profit from the update, after steam and sega had taken their cuts, would be too negligible to justify the effort.

As a business model, SI should be trying to target and offer added value to those people who buy every year, not those who buy infrequently.Even if you argue its only a smaller core that buy every year, that core likely generates more revenue for them than the more casual user.

So sacrificing guaranteed yearly revenue from that core to try and satisfy people who may or may not buy the game would be a ridiculous business decision.

Frankly, people who are in favour of a two year release cycle are not the people SI should be base their sales strategy on

[jimcognito]

What I'd like to see is a way of importing your save files from one version to the next.

Nothing worse than having to walk away from a game you've put so many hours into, just to do it all over again. I actually still play FM12 regulary, as I can't bring myself to leave my game, which is now in 2056/57 season........

[bollarn]

What I'd like to see is a way of importing your save files from one version to the next.

Nothing worse than having to walk away from a game you've put so many hours into, just to do it all over again. I actually still play FM12 regulary, as I can't bring myself to leave my game, which is now in 2056/57 season........

Or to transform your teams from old fms into newer ones, I want to do a tournament with all the great teams I've built over the years, would be so much fun :D

[ScotchWhisky]

As a business model, SI should be trying to target and offer added value to those people who buy every year, not those who buy infrequently.Even if you argue its only a smaller core that buy every year, that core likely generates more revenue for them than the more casual user.

So sacrificing guaranteed yearly revenue from that core to try and satisfy people who may or may not buy the game would be a ridiculous business decision.

Frankly, people who are in favour of a two year release cycle are not the people SI should be base their sales strategy on

You and cleaner are probably right about it not being valuable to release line-up updates for newer versions.

As for SI not wanting to base their decision on the non-"core" players. I don't know about that. I think they have actually lost a fair amount of people in recent times. As technology has expanded, there has been a lot more areas to work on. The short cycle still does lead to major bugs and it does frustrate many people. I am still frustrated by the interface bug with the tactics screen. I was probably overexaggerating when I said earlier that it made it unplayable, but it certainly makes it a lot more difficult to work with line-ups when you cannot get the information you want to show up on the screen.

What I'd like to see is a way of importing your save files from one version to the next.

Nothing worse than having to walk away from a game you've put so many hours into, just to do it all over again. I actually still play FM12 regulary, as I can't bring myself to leave my game, which is now in 2056/57 season........

That is also another major reason why I buy every other year. I don't play it enough to want to leave my game so quickly. I almost wish I had skipped '15 as well and just worked on my '13 save. I figured there is one major thing preventing them from doing this... the change in attribute types. For example, from '13 to '15, I notice two new categories. Vision and Jumping Reach. I imagine the latter is just a new name for jumping, so no big deal. But how would they create the vision stat for the players already generated in your old league? They could just add up all your attribute scores and take an average (or maybe just all the mental attributes). But that wouldn't necessarily be accurate.

[pjbork]

That is also another major reason why I buy every other year. I don't play it enough to want to leave my game so quickly. I almost wish I had skipped '15 as well and just worked on my '13 save. I figured there is one major thing preventing them from doing this... the change in attribute types. For example, from '13 to '15, I notice two new categories. Vision and Jumping Reach. I imagine the latter is just a new name for jumping, so no big deal. But how would they create the vision stat for the players already generated in your old league? They could just add up all your attribute scores and take an average (or maybe just all the mental attributes). But that wouldn't necessarily be accurate.

Vision is just a renaming of Creativity . They are the exact same attribute.

[gavo01]

I think that a majority of how people vote would depend on the amount of game time you have.

If you are one of these people who can come home from work or school and play it continually till bedtime, and get through numerous seasons in a week, then I'd say they would vote No.

If, like myself, because of personal circumstances, you only get bits and pieces of FM time, and therefore a single season could take weeks to complete, then maybe you'd be inclined to vote Yes.

Maybe I'm wrong here and apologies if I am.

Personally I like the yearly releases as it gives me the option of which version I would like to purchase should I feel the need to.