Football Manager 2017 Release Date and Pre Purchase Details Announced

[talhak]

1 minute ago, treble_yell_:-) said:

Thanks you

you are welcome mate, you can ask whatever you want related with FM17 to me. Glad to help you. 

[Aleynasdad]

Have been playing the game since the first and have never been disappointed. Ordered today with my 20% discount and don't take care about the changes. It's always been better. Why distrust someone who has constantly repaid your trust?

[Dagenham_Dave]

I actually cannot believe people will decide whether to buy this game or not solely on the content of the 'new features'. It's a game around £30, which will give you considerably more hours of gameplay than most other games double that price. It's a series that's been out for years, so new features or not, you know what you'll be getting. 

Those moaning about losing the loyalty discount if they pre-order too late due to no announcement about new features are the absolute worst though. To qualify for the full discount, you'd have to have purchased the last four editions of the game. I steadfastly refuse to believe that ANYONE in that situation would have no idea about the game before ordering. Even if SI never announced anything at all about it beforehand 

[drstonk]

Got my pre-order, complete with 20% discount and FM Touch, cheers SI, the game has tremendous loyalty from fans, so giving a little back is very welcome.

[AndySummers]

Just purchased at 10% off.

Personally, I do not give a fig for any new features or wild upscaling in the 3D graphics. I just want a robust match engine that will play like it should; something akin to the final build of FM15. I would prefer any developments to be reflected in how the engine responds to certain scenarios. The art of the chip shot has long been dead, and it would be great to see that make a revival, in addition to a less linear feeling of the shooting aspect overall (ie on FM15 where wingers would cut inside and too often blast the ball wide into the same area) - more variation here would be welcomed.

Fine-tuning in the transfer aspects would also be appreciated. Too often in FM15 big clubs bought players for huge fees and then never gave them a game. Assuming this hadn't already been fixed in FM16, improvements here would also be welcomed.

Improvements to certain players roles would also add enjoyment to the game.

Looking forward to release date.

[Lord Rowell]

2 hours ago, Dagenham_Dave said:

I actually cannot believe people will decide whether to buy this game or not solely on the content of the 'new features'. It's a game around £30, which will give you considerably more hours of gameplay than most other games double that price. It's a series that's been out for years, so new features or not, you know what you'll be getting. 

Those moaning about losing the loyalty discount if they pre-order too late due to no announcement about new features are the absolute worst though. To qualify for the full discount, you'd have to have purchased the last four editions of the game. I steadfastly refuse to believe that ANYONE in that situation would have no idea about the game before ordering. Even if SI never announced anything at all about it beforehand 

That's what I'll base my purchase decision on.

I agree with you re. the gameplay / value for money in that respect. But I can continue to get that from the most recent version I have, FM16 in my case, or even do a trip down memory lane to an older version to keep myself amused. I can load the transfer updates from SIOUSI if that floats my boat.

For me, and this is purely personal, when I look at a new version of FM I ask myself, is it sufficiently different from the one I'm playing to tempt me? Sometimes the answer is 'yes' so I buy it. If not, I don't and I'll just wait for a future release.

[jimbo22]

I really hope they have sorted out the transfer system in the game. 

As an example, started a new game with AC Milan. Transfer listed Zapata (valued at £6m) for £9m. Bournemouth offer me £6m for him.. I rejected it as there is interest from others and I want more money... 3 days later they come back in with another offer for £6m this time broken down with some of it spread over 12 months. Why? just why? Did they think that would make me accept it!?!

One of my major annoyances with this game and has been for a fair few years. 

[Preveza]

4 hours ago, Dagenham_Dave said:

I actually cannot believe people will decide whether to buy this game or not solely on the content of the 'new features'. It's a game around £30, which will give you considerably more hours of gameplay than most other games double that price. It's a series that's been out for years, so new features or not, you know what you'll be getting. 

Those moaning about losing the loyalty discount if they pre-order too late due to no announcement about new features are the absolute worst though. To qualify for the full discount, you'd have to have purchased the last four editions of the game. I steadfastly refuse to believe that ANYONE in that situation would have no idea about the game before ordering. Even if SI never announced anything at all about it beforehand 

This

[Cougar2010]

32 minutes ago, jimbo22 said:

I really hope they have sorted out the transfer system in the game. 

As an example, started a new game with AC Milan. Transfer listed Zapata (valued at £6m) for £9m. Bournemouth offer me £6m for him.. I rejected it as there is interest from others and I want more money... 3 days later they come back in with another offer for £6m this time broken down with some of it spread over 12 months. Why? just why? Did they think that would make me accept it!?!

One of my major annoyances with this game and has been for a fair few years. 

A £6m offer for someone transfer listed at £9m is a good offer which should have been accepted.

If you wanted more you should have listed him at a higher price, you will rarely be offered the price you list for.  You also had the option of negotiating for a higher price rather than rejecting the offer.

In terms of them coming back with a similar offer, they see it as an acceptable offer and are probably confused about you rejecting it.  However that said SI were looking to reduce the times that clubs came back with similar offers within a short time frame.

[martplfc1]

His issue is that they came back with the same offer but spread over months, I.e a worse offer than was originally rejected. That is stupid.

Why would they be confused? He's listed him at £9m. The AI does it all the time.

[jimbo22]

10 minutes ago, Cougar2010 said:

A £6m offer for someone transfer listed at £9m is a good offer which should have been accepted.

If you wanted more you should have listed him at a higher price, you will rarely be offered the price you list for.  You also had the option of negotiating for a higher price rather than rejecting the offer.

In terms of them coming back with a similar offer, they see it as an acceptable offer and are probably confused about you rejecting it.  However that said SI were looking to reduce the times that clubs came back with similar offers within a short time frame.

I rejected it because I told them it wasnt a good enough offer.

Yet they came back in with a worse offer the next time? There's a reason I have set his asking price at £9m... thats what I want for him. Mart above this post nails it. This is something that happens all the time and in the process you end up with upset players that wreck squad harmony.

There will alway be people that make excuses for the reasoning behind bids from the AI. 

 

I just hope that it has been looked at, although Im not holding out much hope.

[Cougar2010]

4 minutes ago, jimbo22 said:

I rejected it because I told them it wasnt a good enough offer.

Yet they came back in with a worse offer the next time? There's a reason I have set his asking price at £9m... thats what I want for him. Mart above this post nails it. This is something that happens all the time and in the process you end up with upset players that wreck squad harmony.

There will alway be people that make excuses for the reasoning behind bids from the AI.

Sorry but thats not the way it works either in FM or RL.

If you want £9m for him you should be setting his asking price higher.  No-one in their right mind offers the asking price straight up, especially for a transfer listed player.

Whether you like it or not its unlikely to change as the basics have a foundation IRL.

 

In terms of coming back with the same offer as I said in my post SI were looking to reduce the occasions this happens but it was more for three or more times, twice is probably acceptable. 

[GunmaN1905]

Just bought the game on steam, great pre-order bonuses and 20% discount.

As for the outgoing transfers, that needs fixing.
There was a way to somewhat exploit it and find out the highest fee you can get for a player.

For example if you offer a player for 10mil and place him on a transfer list most of the time teams will offer only 50% of the value, 5mil.
And as you lower it towards 5, interested teams also lower their offer to 50%.
But if you start with 20mil, there's a chance someone will offer 10mil.
If not, most of the time you can get 8-9mil by just lowering the asked price from 20.
(random numbers, just to explain easier)

I know it's realistic for the teams to try and make the best deal possible for themselves, but it's a bit unrealistic that every time there's no teams who're willing to pay your asking price everyone instantly offers exactly 50%.
And if you reject that and lower your demands a bit, interested teams also lower the offer. Wouldn't it be more realistic for them to raise it a bit. If they were offering more already, I know that they have funds available. <.<
 

[jimbo22]

14 minutes ago, Cougar2010 said:

Sorry but thats not the way it works either in FM or RL.

If you want £9m for him you should be setting his asking price higher.  No-one in their right mind offers the asking price straight up, especially for a transfer listed player.

Whether you like it or not its unlikely to change as the basics have a foundation IRL.

 

In terms of coming back with the same offer as I said in my post SI were looking to reduce the occasions this happens but it was more for three or more times, twice is probably acceptable. 

As I said there will be excuses made, there always has on here. 

 

Funnily enough when you try to buy a transfer listed AI player 99.9% of the time you have to pay the asking price. 

[Cougar2010]

Just now, jimbo22 said:

As I said there will be excuses made, there always has on here. 

 

Funnily enough when you try to buy a transfer listed AI player 99.9% of the time you have to pay the asking price. 

Is that much like there will always be people who stick their fingers in their ears or bury their head in the sand because they can't see past their own blinkered view?

Your second comment is simply not true and just further shows your lack of understanding of negotiation.  A high % of AI transfer listed players will be listed at a price already below their value whereas you listed yours higher.  You can often negotiate that price down further and have done so myself on numerous occasions.

[jimbo22]

9 minutes ago, Cougar2010 said:

Is that much like there will always be people who stick their fingers in their ears or bury their head in the sand because they can't see past their own blinkered view?

Your second comment is simply not true and just further shows your lack of understanding of negotiation.  A high % of AI transfer listed players will be listed at a price already below their value whereas you listed yours higher.  You can often negotiate that price down further and have done so myself on numerous occasions.

Just done a little experiment.

Opened up a game a few seasons in and had a look at the transfer market. There certainly were players that had asking prices lower than their value (which is not the problem I was speaking about) but I bid for 5/6 players that were transfer listed above their value. I couldnt even get them to accept offers of £500k below their asking price (the deals were between £7m and £11m). 4 of the offers came back with non negotiable at the asking price. 1 of them came back with negotiable offer (with clauses) that put the deal above the asking price. 

 

Now that was just a quick 5/10 minute test but i've logged enough time with the game to know what will happen in the transfer market.

 

As I said earlier there are problems with the way the game handles the transfer market and I hope it has been worked on. I'll leave it there before totally derailing the thread.

[HUNT3R]

1 hour ago, jimbo22 said:

I really hope they have sorted out the transfer system in the game. 

As an example, started a new game with AC Milan. Transfer listed Zapata (valued at £6m) for £9m. Bournemouth offer me £6m for him.. I rejected it as there is interest from others and I want more money... 3 days later they come back in with another offer for £6m this time broken down with some of it spread over 12 months. Why? just why? Did they think that would make me accept it!?!

One of my major annoyances with this game and has been for a fair few years. 

If you have specific examples of issues, please report it.

It's not fair blaming the entire "transfer system" on specific issues. If you have examples, SI would be happy to review it. As always. constructive criticism is appreciated.

[burgalveist]

4 hours ago, jimbo22 said:

I really hope they have sorted out the transfer system in the game. 

As an example, started a new game with AC Milan. Transfer listed Zapata (valued at £6m) for £9m. Bournemouth offer me £6m for him.. I rejected it as there is interest from others and I want more money... 3 days later they come back in with another offer for £6m this time broken down with some of it spread over 12 months. Why? just why? Did they think that would make me accept it!?!

One of my major annoyances with this game and has been for a fair few years. 

Haven't posted on this in a long time but think you are looking at it from purely sellers perspective.

If you've transfer listed the player it shows you want to get rid of the player. Willing seller, its more important for you to sell than make profit. Look at most club related transfer listings, unless instigated by the player who they want to keep or not willing to part with, it will be a lower than player value price. If the teams buying are lower reputation teams they will be thinking the 3m you want as well will probably be needed to tempt the player via wages to go there. Maybe offer a wage contribution.

If the transfer deadline clock is ticking might it be unthinkable to think the Cherries might chance their arm with a lower bid if no one else has firmed up their interest in hope of catching you in a panic?

Also find, if you structure the deals certain ways, pay more upfront you can go under the asking price.

[russianorphan7]

On 8/17/2016 at 09:17, ianscousemac said:

Brilliant I can't wait.  I really hope we get the option to control a real life manager in FM 17 and take control of u21/u18 teams. 

Dream on. For whatever reason, they are totally obstinate to the idea of a player actually playing as real managers in a manager sim. Clearly, that's too radical of an idea for them.

We just need to forego our irrational desires for role-play and wholeheartedly embrace their vision of it being about YOU. We mustn't forget that SI know's what is best for us, not we, the actual consumers.

[russianorphan7]

On 10/7/2016 at 12:09, mfprez said:

I personally think spending so long on the 3D engine is a waste of time since it is going to always be limited and look unrealistic barring some great technological leap with quantum computing. Just keep it how it is and STOP.. it is a time wasting exercise because the developments aren't that great with it year on yea - for one the animations still look terrible, but the graphics themselves look a bit better. You should spend longer making the core of the game realistic, and much less time on interface.

LOL that you think we need something as incredibly powerful as QM for a graphics engine. Have you seen the current state of video game graphics? There is more than enough technology and talent to produce quality soccer graphics for this game, they just haven't done it for reasons I don't know (money, inability to recruit well, etc.). 

[russianorphan7]

On 10/7/2016 at 06:34, forameuss said:

It's already been announced.  Only thing that hasn't is when it will be.  Which never gets announced.  It just appears.

What the hell is SI thinking? Releasing feature info incredibly late and just dropping a demo unannounced. I don't see any good reason for marketing a game this way. It's just frustrating.

[herne79]

7 minutes ago, russianorphan7 said:

Dream on. For whatever reason, they are totally obstinate to the idea of a player actually playing as real managers in a manager sim. Clearly, that's too radical of an idea for them.

We just need to forego our irrational desires for role-play and wholeheartedly embrace their vision of it being about YOU. We mustn't forget that SI know's what is best for us, not we, the actual consumers.

Posting your opinions is one thing.  Lacing them sarcasm and vitriol is something else entirely and (at best) will simply get your posts removed.

It's not too radical an idea as it's already been thought about.  Whilst the vision is indeed that the game is about you as a Manager, you also cannot discount the legal and licensing issues involved which you seem to be ignoring.

And if you really want to role play as a real Manager, there's nothing stopping you creating your own version of one.

[mfprez]

17 minutes ago, russianorphan7 said:

Dream on. For whatever reason, they are totally obstinate to the idea of a player actually playing as real managers in a manager sim. Clearly, that's too radical of an idea for them.

We just need to forego our irrational desires for role-play and wholeheartedly embrace their vision of it being about YOU. We mustn't forget that SI know's what is best for us, not we, the actual consumers.

Haha I already do this, or create a manager from an old player who maybe isn't on the game, and retire the originals if they are already in the game.

12 minutes ago, russianorphan7 said:

LOL that you think we need something as incredibly powerful as QM for a graphics engine. Have you seen the current state of video game graphics? There is more than enough technology and talent to produce quality soccer graphics for this game, they just haven't done it for reasons I don't know (money, inability to recruit well, etc.). 

I have no idea how graphics and games are made, and I was being sarcastic regarding quantum computing lol.. but with my limited knowledge I made the post with the assumption that for some reason it is not a simple case of recruiting loads of talented designers and getting them to work, due to the complexities & variables of the match engine and applying next-gen graphics to it - I don't know how much of a task this is in 2016.. how much time it would take, how many people it would need? Also this idea of great quality graphics would make the 3D engine unplayable for many people who play on old machines and your average laptop, which makes up a large base of users. So it kind of comes something that doesn't appeal to most of the audience and not worth putting the effort/cost into and it would have to be very well optimised. Maybe I will not buy FM for 50 years, maybe then we can go into the dug out and shout at our players

[Matt ex SEGA]

They have an 11 month dev

9 minutes ago, russianorphan7 said:

What the hell is SI thinking? Releasing feature info incredibly late and just dropping a demo unannounced. I don't see any good reason for marketing a game this way. It's just frustrating.

They work on an 11.5 month release cycle.  So they're trying to pack an awful lot of features, as well as improving under-the-hood stuff, into that short time.

As a result - they're not always confident what stuff is going to make the final build.  So the team's preference has always been to wait until they're confident about what to talk about.  Demonstrating features a month before launch is much more possible than demonstrating features three months before launch.

The demo comes unannounced, I believe, because they're looking at every version to determine what the best experience will be - that's determined by looking at and playing the code, not fixing on a version that'll be available on a specific date and hoping that one will work well.

[Matt ex SEGA]

17 minutes ago, russianorphan7 said:

LOL that you think we need something as incredibly powerful as QM for a graphics engine. Have you seen the current state of video game graphics? There is more than enough technology and talent to produce quality soccer graphics for this game, they just haven't done it for reasons I don't know (money, inability to recruit well, etc.). 

This just isn't true.

SI are kinda hamstrung by wanting to have a pretty low-end minimum spec.  

I posted a little about it in the release thread, up top of the forum.  But if you consider the amount of variables that SI are pumping into the match engine, its radically different to an action game which has much less to compute and show at any one time.

 

[mfprez]

 

2 minutes ago, Matt ex SEGA said:

They have an 11 month dev

They work on an 11.5 month release cycle.  So they're trying to pack an awful lot of features, as well as improving under-the-hood stuff, into that short time.

As a result - they're not always confident what stuff is going to make the final build.  So the team's preference has always been to wait until they're confident about what to talk about.  Demonstrating features a month before launch is much more possible than demonstrating features three months before launch.

The demo comes unannounced, I believe, because they're looking at every version to determine what the best experience will be - that's determined by looking at and playing the code, not fixing on a version that'll be available on a specific date and hoping that one will work well.

Have you thought about increasing the cycle? Instead of releasing a game every year, how about 2 or even 3? You could maybe release a once yearly £10-15 DLC for any new updates and spend some real time taking the game to the next level.

[Matt ex SEGA]

Just now, mfprez said:

 

Have you thought about increasing the cycle? Instead of releasing a game every year, how about 2 or even 3? You could maybe release a once yearly £10-15 DLC for any new updates and spend some real time taking the game to the next level.

I haven't, as I don't work there any more...:)

Best guess - that's not financially viable.  

[flogside]

On 9/27/2016 at 16:17, forameuss said:

No it isn't.  It's not new in the games industry, whether it's right or wrong.

You're not pushed to pre-order it.  You have the option, incentivised via the loyalty offer.

It can occur whenever a developer wants it to.  Don't trot out the "no competition" argument again.

And for all the furore, it's clear that some people have taken advantage of the offer.  An absolute non-issue.

The "no competition" argument is a completely relevant argument though. Why wouldnt they mention that? Its very true. Si and the FM series hasnt had any competition for years. A lot of people like myself will buy this game, by my own free choice of course, because we love management sims and football. But give me a football sim series in the vain of OOTP baseball and they way that has been heading and id drop the FM series immediately. The focus on 3D, the lack of quality changes to the management part of the game, the now very strange marketing strategy.......put me right off personally. But ill buy and continue to do so as i want my footy sim fix, and SI bank on many people thinking and feeling that way in my opinion.

[KUBI]

Just now, mfprez said:

Have you thought about increasing the cycle? Instead of releasing a game every year, how about 2 or even 3? You could maybe release a once yearly £10-15 DLC for any new updates and spend some real time taking the game to the next level.

My guess is that there are already different cycles. Usually teams are working for some aspects of the game for a longer period, like a complete overhaul of one part of the game, but you also have to make a cut for features and improvements that will go into the next release.

[cris182]

4 minutes ago, mfprez said:

 

Have you thought about increasing the cycle? Instead of releasing a game every year, how about 2 or even 3? You could maybe release a once yearly £10-15 DLC for any new updates and spend some real time taking the game to the next level.

Problem there is you straight away cut the amount of money that is made, And business being just that means they can't/won't let that money not come in for a year. As for selling an update, It can be done for free so even that wouldn't bring in much money one would expect

[KUBI]

What is so strange about the marketing strategy? That they do not tease the game months before the release? It's an established game, most of the people who could be reached by marketing already know about it. So why not concentrate on the weeks just before the release? And give the loyal customers something back - for being loyal? If you played this game for years you already know that you will enjoy the new version as you did the versions before. For those who are unsure, there is the usual way - wait until the demo is out.

[vikeologist]

8 hours ago, russianorphan7 said:

What the hell is SI thinking? Releasing feature info incredibly late and just dropping a demo unannounced. I don't see any good reason for marketing a game this way. It's just frustrating.

You see, I don't think being frustrating is such a bad marketing strategy.

I think the people in charge of marketing for this version may be doing a really smart job. I kind of hate them at the moment, but the success will come with sales; not satisfaction questionnaires filled out by the likes of us.

Anyway 16 pages on this thread. Not bad from a marketing point of view.

 

[Prim47]

16 hours ago, HUNT3R said:

If you have specific examples of issues, please report it.

It's not fair blaming the entire "transfer system" on specific issues. If you have examples, SI would be happy to review it. As always. constructive criticism is appreciated.

Hi HUNT3R, he did happen to mention a few examples in his later posts. I am just trying to help as I see this also. See the below. 

17 hours ago, jimbo22 said:

Just done a little experiment.

Opened up a game a few seasons in and had a look at the transfer market. There certainly were players that had asking prices lower than their value (which is not the problem I was speaking about) but I bid for 5/6 players that were transfer listed above their value. I couldnt even get them to accept offers of £500k below their asking price (the deals were between £7m and £11m). 4 of the offers came back with non negotiable at the asking price. 1 of them came back with negotiable offer (with clauses) that put the deal above the asking price. 

 

Now that was just a quick 5/10 minute test but i've logged enough time with the game to know what will happen in the transfer market.

 

As I said earlier there are problems with the way the game handles the transfer market and I hope it has been worked on. I'll leave it there before totally derailing the thread.

 

[herne79]

23 minutes ago, Prim47 said:

Hi HUNT3R, he did happen to mention a few examples in his later posts. I am just trying to help as I see this also. See the below. 

 

If you or anyone else think they have found such issues, they should be raised in the Bugs Forum for SI to review, not hidden in a 17+ page thread where they'll get lost.  That's what @HUNT3R means .

https://community.sigames.com/forum/338-football-manager-2016-bugs-forum/

[HUNT3R]

1 hour ago, Prim47 said:

Hi HUNT3R, he did happen to mention a few examples in his later posts. I am just trying to help as I see this also. See the below. 

 

As I said - report it then. Casually mentioning something in an unrelated, 17 page thread won't get it noticed, it's not a report and doesn't provide the examples I mentioned.

Reporting such an issue requires a thread opened in the bugs forum, the specific issue laid out clearly with steps to re-produce it and the save game uploaded to the FTP so that SI can review it.

[DirtyJoe]

sorry if its been mentioned, but is there a release of the new features etc? less than a month to go and I a havnt seen any announcements?

[martplfc1]

This week sometime apparently.

[Keyzer Soze]

Hi,

Is there any news about the release date for the IOS/Android version of FMT17?

FMT, for the pc, gets out on the same day of the full version, but i haven't seen anything about the IOS/android version.

[martplfc1]

17th - banner at the top of the forum gives details.

Also, the title of the second pinned thread tells you. Didn't look far did you ?

[HUNT3R]

4 minutes ago, martplfc1 said:

17th - banner at the top of the forum gives details.

Also, the title of the second pinned thread tells you. Didn't look far did you ?

He's asking about FMT, not FMM.

 

Nothing has been announced for it, yet, AFAIK.

[martplfc1]

Ah ok, in that case I apologise. I thought IOS/Android was mobile?

[HUNT3R]

1 minute ago, martplfc1 said:

Ah ok, in that case I apologise. I thought IOS/Android was mobile?

Could be tablets too, which is where FMT comes in.

[martplfc1]

Gotcha, thanks ?

[Hunter T]

just one question.

the pre-order costs 54.99 euros with the 20% discount i got (downloaded from steam all versions since 2012)

will cost 43.99 if my maths are ok,?

i was under the impression that none of the previous releases costed more than 36  euros...

[nicko]

Just briefly reading some of the transfer system posts I noticed issues with "offering out players"

My question is, why is there a need to "offer" players out to accumulate interest and in my experience any formal transfer offers don't happen unless you physically offer the player out, no matter how good the player in question is.

Surely this is something that needs to addressed

[luka_zg]

So, I'd say we should expect beta to be available in about 10 days time. So I think we will have the announcement about new features this week. But it is strictly speculation, ofcourse.

[beardymouse]

42 minutes ago, Hunter T said:

just one question.

the pre-order costs 54.99 euros with the 20% discount i got (downloaded from steam all versions since 2012)

will cost 43.99 if my maths are ok,?

i was under the impression that none of the previous releases costed more than 36  euros...

The EU-referendum result - and the subsequent collapse of the pound - probably makes the game more expensive outside of the UK

Will only get worse too, so pre-order while you can!

[eriktous]

If the value of the pound goes down, I will get more pounds for my euro, right, or the other way around, a pound will cost me less euros, making it cheaper to buy from the UK?

[luka_zg]

6 minutes ago, eriktous said:

If the value of the pound goes down, I will get more pounds for my euro, right, or the other way around, a pound will cost me less euros, making it cheaper to buy from the UK?

yeah. so maybe you manage to save like..1.50 euros. 

[seanydude]

I reckon we might get some stuff tomorrow during the England game