Maybe FM should not be released annually

[Guest]

2 hours ago, upthetoon said:

you can CHOOSE not to buy them yearly. Like me.

I skipped FM17. and tried FM18 demo and did not like it, and i'll be skipping it too.

 

I think this is the best approach. I'm fairly certain that SI have considered their way of operating many times and do what suits them best. I think I bought every other version from CM03/04 to something like FM2010, then FM2013 and most recently FM2017. FM2017 was a huge disappointment, as none of my main concerns from FM2013 had changed in any way (all of them in the match engine). FM2018 will get a pass from me. However, as you can see, I still follow at least some of the discussion.

[Halofon]

I will get to the former question, and I think that no, they will not.

 

There is a HUGE base of FM enthusiasts who buys the game every year. And after that spend like 2000 + hours in the game.

Second thing is, that I am quite sure, that SI has some kind of financial reporting mechanism which tells them, if the game is having revenues - why should they change the business model, if it works out for them? Another thing is that the game at least for me is really complex now, and I really can not imagine lot of things to improve (apart from press conferences).

Bur if you want two year cycle - go ahead, and buy every 2nd edition, nobody forces you to buy it I think.

I think I will do it like that this year also - mainly bcs I have 1 yr old daughter and want to spend some time with her.

Only thing I could imagine is let´s say official SI roster update for older versions, which would be like 10 EUR - 15 EUR? whatever, I would buy it instead of new game.

[Rooneye]

What I wish would happen is for SI to form a separate team that works on a new modern match engine, while the main team keeps working on the yearly releases until new match engine can be incorporated. From what I've heard the current match engine is old "legacy" code that is massive and a pain to update/change as when you change something five other things break. Obviously I'm just going by things I've heard which might not be true at all and there might be a million reasons why this is not possible or worth doing.

 

[themadsheep2001]

30 minutes ago, Rooneye said:

What I wish would happen is for SI to form a separate team that works on a new modern match engine, while the main team keeps working on the yearly releases until new match engine can be incorporated. From what I've heard the current match engine is old "legacy" code that is massive and a pain to update/change as when you change something five other things break. Obviously I'm just going by things I've heard which might not be true at all and there might be a million reasons why this is not possible or worth doing.

 

There is already a separate ME Team, it's numbers have actually increased in recent years 

[macca72]

Won't happen, but for what it's worth I'd have happily handed over the £20 notes I paid for FMT with FM17 ME and an updated DB & UI.

[serif]

Clearly the excuses are going to line up, and if they're selling well enough they apparently aren't going to care. The year to year quality of the game doesn't appear to be their top concern, the money does. You can't try to appeal to the sense of merit of people like this. Start buying FM every other year or even at longer intervals. I went from FM14 to FM17 and didn't miss that much. I bought FM18 on the heels of 17 and the overall changes are laughable. Played the game for like 50 hours and might not return to it, we'll see. Doubt I'll buy the game for a third consecutive year. But again, these people only care about numbers. Disappointed as you might be there's not too much more you can do than express yourself with your wallet. If that's not enough, let people enjoy the financial benefits of utter mediocrity.

Consider, by the way, that EA is now thinking about not releasing their far more successful games annually. Eventually customer dissatisfaction might affect SI too, although they may be too small and content and ignore it.

[Maaka]

26 minutes ago, serif said:

Clearly the excuses are going to line up, and if they're selling well enough they apparently aren't going to care. The year to year quality of the game doesn't appear to be their top concern, the money does. You can't try to appeal to the sense of merit of people like this.

Don't think that's the smartest way to put it, mate. And as it has been pointed out several times in this thread, it's not for the sake of money itself, but the fact that the yearly revenue makes it possible to retain the staff in the long run, so they actually can plan further ahead.
A biannual cycle would mean less profits, yes, but it would also lead to less staff to develop the game and thus hamper the long term development.

[Footix]

Would it be a compromise if SI offered official database updates as well as the annual game? Obviously I don't know SI code, but player attributes don't seem to change from one edition to the next, so it should be possible to make the latest database available for the older games, say 1-3 editions back? Together with league updates (promotions / relegations) for unchanged leagues. Obviously if the rules change for a league and they would have to make code changes, it wouldn't be updated. 

If they offered this for a fair price, I would probably be interested. 

And they could keep the annual cycle for new games with new features and all. 

[Rooneye]

2 minutes ago, Footix said:

Would it be a compromise if SI offered official database updates as well as the annual game? Obviously I don't know SI code, but player attributes don't seem to change from one edition to the next, so it should be possible to make the latest database available for the older games, say 1-3 editions back? Together with league updates (promotions / relegations) for unchanged leagues. Obviously if the rules change for a league and they would have to make code changes, it wouldn't be updated. 

If they offered this for a fair price, I would probably be interested. 

And they could keep the annual cycle for new games with new features and all. 

I was reading something lately where SI were saying that save files couldn't be carried over from previous games due to legal reasons (as well as technical), they have to stop selling previous games at a certain point for legal/licensing reasons. Not sure if that would also be true for something like this.

[Jam_Man]

Going by the hours played on each version recorded on Steam I play one year heavily, then seem to have a quiet year so in theory a two year cycle would suit me.

However there is no logic at all in them doing so.

It would achieve nothing and halve their income and actually damage the game as they would have less money to spend on the development.

[enigmatic]

3 hours ago, themadsheep2001 said:

There is already a separate ME Team, it's numbers have actually increased in recent years 

I think the suggestion is two separate Match Engine teams in parallel, a Next Release and Bugfixes Team and Next Generation Total Rebuild Match Engine Team.

Which might actually genuinely be a good idea if legacy code is problematic and if SI doesn't already do something along these lines. Certainly a smarter solution than going for a year without income.

But then again, I haven't actually seen any evidence that the real problem with FM is that they don't keep rebuilding their match engine from scratch, and I've seen an awful lot of evidence that bugs only get caught if there are enough people playing the game to actually spot them...

[aditya]

SI doesn't care. 

They have set an end goal, its a long grueling project. It will take years if not decades of sacrifice from fans complaining, just to get to where the developer envision the game to be like. 


 

[Svenc]

1 hour ago, aditya said:

SI doesn't care. 

They have set an end goal.
 

 

Going by some of the imo awful player requests that according to one of the more popular FM 18 Steam reviews (negative due to unfulfilled) seem top of the player wish tables, they arguably shouldn't too much. Their goal has been laid bare straight in the first documentation of their first ever game -- European Champions was basically the prototype to Champ Man. Some of those areas are long-term concerns anyway, but either way, that's about it.

[Remez]

Ye we do want a game every year. With the money they make it shouldnt be a problem to make a bug free game 

[Svenc]

27 minutes ago, serif said:

 I wonder how many of the people who buy this game every year do so mostly because they have a void to fill rather than because the game is a refreshed joy every year.

There's likely an awful lot of people who don't buy it every year (myself included). Precisely because they may filter beforehand if the upgrade was worth it. I think they actually showed some research in more recent that stated the long-term would buy it every 2nd iteration at best, and that seems legit for this type of annual project. There's either way, an awful lot of patronizing going on -- who is anybody to judge anybody's motivation to buy a game? There's certainly also an awful lot of assumptions being made. I wonder how many people post the same thing every year because they are the type addressed by this -- I have zero insights into the development nor the funding process of this, neither the business structure. But I would assume that with a full-time staff approaching the hundred, it may not be quite as simple as that -- elementary school Maths, and all that. Some insights used to be shared in earlier years, but looking around, that likely stopped for reason.

I don't judge the business as I have no idea how it's run. I don't jugde the people as I don't know them, though a few of them seem good blokes from their online presence. I judge the product, which I may buy or not, and on that front, yes, I am concerned about longt-term core AI development the most too. But people selling and making games to make a living and earn money, scandalous, innit.

[forameuss]

13 hours ago, serif said:

Clearly the excuses are going to line up, and if they're selling well enough they apparently aren't going to care. The year to year quality of the game doesn't appear to be their top concern, the money does. You can't try to appeal to the sense of merit of people like this. Start buying FM every other year or even at longer intervals. I went from FM14 to FM17 and didn't miss that much. I bought FM18 on the heels of 17 and the overall changes are laughable. Played the game for like 50 hours and might not return to it, we'll see. Doubt I'll buy the game for a third consecutive year. But again, these people only care about numbers. Disappointed as you might be there's not too much more you can do than express yourself with your wallet. If that's not enough, let people enjoy the financial benefits of utter mediocrity.

Consider, by the way, that EA is now thinking about not releasing their far more successful games annually. Eventually customer dissatisfaction might affect SI too, although they may be too small and content and ignore it.

1) Can't really blame anyone if you bought the game when there was a free demo available, particularly when it sounds like you usually only buy in intervals.  Surely you know roughly what you were going to get?
2) You likely won't be able to return it having played 50 hours
3) You're absolutely right in saying that if you don't like the direction it's going in, don't buy the game.  If that feeling is widespread, they'll see the difference.  I doubt it is though
4) You do realise that EA are only doing that so they can move to a far more lucrative games-as-a-service model?  Are you really holding them up as some kind of good example here?  Their games are already little more than database updates, pretty much just a vehicle for them to rake in thousands from the whales/tubes that can't resist buying packs.  If EA are the shining example in your eyes, then I'd rather SI just gave up.

[XaW]

So we are here again? A lot of people who have no idea how software development works but with grand suggestions to SI as to how they should change their whole business model and development cycle?

Now, many in here have offered well though out thoughts and suggestions and that is something I applaud, but quite a number in here also spit out their own thoughts of SI's agenda and ideas that don't have any root in reality what so ever.

Changing a development cycle is no small matter, even without bringing the customer into the equation, but some seem to have the impression that it's just a matter of when they press the "release"-button. Consider for a brief moment that SI actually know what they are doing, since they are a successful company and all. Do you think their plans are just for 1 version more than the current one? This means, they have a forward plan, a "roadmap", as noted before, of where they are headed and what their FM version in X years are going to look like. I say X since I don't know how many they are thinking of. I would assume the level of detail is less clear the further in the future they are looking, but a general plan none the less.

This means they have a plan for how many developers and testers and all the other roles they actually need for the next version and even how many they might need to hire in the future. So changing the development cycle might change this, and they might need to reduce it because of the revenue decreases if they have a biannual release. Does this seem like a good plan to anyone of you? If it does, then FM is the least of your troubles.

Then the fact that sales numbers must tell them the annual release is wanted by their customers. I don't have the sales numbers for FM18, or FM17 for that matter, but I guess they would acknowledge they need to change something should the sales levels drop. If they are climbing then they are doing what their customers want. I for one are enjoying FM18 and see it as a big improvement on FM17. If I didn't I would revert to playing FM17! I don't play games to get value for my money, I play them because I enjoy them. I bought Battlefield 1 since I really had fun playing the earlier versions, but I didn't enjoy it, so what did I do? I stopped playing it, and I probably won't buy any further versions unless I get a chance to play a demo or something. SI releases a demo of the game on release and if you are hesitant to buy the full game, then I think you should give the demo a go to figure out if you like it. If you don't then the solution is quite easy, don't buy it. That's the only power we have as customers, to avoid spending money on things we don't like.

What we don't have is the power to ask the developers to change their internal way of working. Hell, I'd love to tell Miles to change this and that because it would make FM more to my likening, but others might not like it. I have posted a couple of suggestions here as to how I would like the game to change, I also know of a lot of other players in here who have posted suggestions that have been put into the game! SI is, for me at least, one of the developers who really listen to their customers, at least here on the forum.

Criticism of the game is more than welcome here! A lot of people have criticized the game in here and gotten good answers from SI. But it needs to be constructive criticism, and not just bashing or "tHis game sux0rs! lulz". It need to be valid. And to the guy who claimed the mods are defending SI; I've seen a lot of criticism of the game FROM mods, since they also enjoy the game and want it to be the best game it can be. Why on earth would they stop complaints when it helps them enjoy a game more if the complaints are valid?

This is in no way a condescending ramble about people's lack of knowledge of software development (as I have been accused of before), but rather to try to explain how and why this is not as easy as it might seem. Hopefully this will be the last post regarding this, but I really doubt it...

[Brentford Alan]

15 hours ago, Footix said:

Would it be a compromise if SI offered official database updates as well as the annual game? Obviously I don't know SI code, but player attributes don't seem to change from one edition to the next, so it should be possible to make the latest database available for the older games, say 1-3 editions back? Together with league updates (promotions / relegations) for unchanged leagues. Obviously if the rules change for a league and they would have to make code changes, it wouldn't be updated. 

If they offered this for a fair price, I would probably be interested. 

And they could keep the annual cycle for new games with new features and all. 

from a researchers POV I would say it's extremely unlikely. Whilst the vast majority of attributes remain the same each year, elements such as the weighting effect of attributes to CA can change, each edition of the game sees new info added like player debuts etc. Ultimately a researcher would have to update the 'new' FM19 data set, as well as the 'old' FM18 data set, and however many other 'old' versions were being kept updated for example. That's not to say it's impossible for us to do, but I would have thought the extra time spent on top of the current workload we're fitting in around real life jobs etc would just simply be too much for many researchers (let alone SI staff). 

 

Purely my own opinion of course, and I say it from the viewpoint of someone who would actually like to see yearly data update options with a new full FM version (and FIFA/PES for that matter) every 3 years if it were financially viable for SI, which I don't believe it would be.

[Tony Wright 747]

19 hours ago, Rooneye said:

What I wish would happen is for SI to form a separate team that works on a new modern match engine, while the main team keeps working on the yearly releases until new match engine can be incorporated. From what I've heard the current match engine is old "legacy" code that is massive and a pain to update/change as when you change something five other things break. Obviously I'm just going by things I've heard which might not be true at all and there might be a million reasons why this is not possible or worth doing.

 

Whilst I doubt that many would disagree with you that the ME needs improving, I don't know where this modern match engine comes from.  Given that FM is the only complex football management game out there and that there is no other ME to compare it with, so it follows that the FM ME is the most modern one.

[Face2Fate]

My opinion is that the series has reached a stage of stagnation. Every year the changes are minor, subtle and even cosmetic at times and i don't think this justifies a yearly release.A two year cycle would be perfect but it probably wouldn't happen because of how much money the game makes.

[Tony Wright 747]

35 minutes ago, Face2Fate said:

My opinion is that the series has reached a stage of stagnation. Every year the changes are minor, subtle and even cosmetic at times and i don't think this justifies a yearly release.A two year cycle would be perfect but it probably wouldn't happen because of how much money the game makes.

pretty much right on all counts

[themadsheep2001]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright 747 said:

pretty much right on all counts

 

20 hours ago, XaW said:

So we are here again? A lot of people who have no idea how software development works but with grand suggestions to SI as to how they should change their whole business model and development cycle?

Now, many in here have offered well though out thoughts and suggestions and that is something I applaud, but quite a number in here also spit out their own thoughts of SI's agenda and ideas that don't have any root in reality what so ever.

Changing a development cycle is no small matter, even without bringing the customer into the equation, but some seem to have the impression that it's just a matter of when they press the "release"-button. Consider for a brief moment that SI actually know what they are doing, since they are a successful company and all. Do you think their plans are just for 1 version more than the current one? This means, they have a forward plan, a "roadmap", as noted before, of where they are headed and what their FM version in X years are going to look like. I say X since I don't know how many they are thinking of. I would assume the level of detail is less clear the further in the future they are looking, but a general plan none the less.

This means they have a plan for how many developers and testers and all the other roles they actually need for the next version and even how many they might need to hire in the future. So changing the development cycle might change this, and they might need to reduce it because of the revenue decreases if they have a biannual release. Does this seem like a good plan to anyone of you? If it does, then FM is the least of your troubles.

Then the fact that sales numbers must tell them the annual release is wanted by their customers. I don't have the sales numbers for FM18, or FM17 for that matter, but I guess they would acknowledge they need to change something should the sales levels drop. If they are climbing then they are doing what their customers want. I for one are enjoying FM18 and see it as a big improvement on FM17. If I didn't I would revert to playing FM17! I don't play games to get value for my money, I play them because I enjoy them. I bought Battlefield 1 since I really had fun playing the earlier versions, but I didn't enjoy it, so what did I do? I stopped playing it, and I probably won't buy any further versions unless I get a chance to play a demo or something. SI releases a demo of the game on release and if you are hesitant to buy the full game, then I think you should give the demo a go to figure out if you like it. If you don't then the solution is quite easy, don't buy it. That's the only power we have as customers, to avoid spending money on things we don't like.

What we don't have is the power to ask the developers to change their internal way of working. Hell, I'd love to tell Miles to change this and that because it would make FM more to my likening, but others might not like it. I have posted a couple of suggestions here as to how I would like the game to change, I also know of a lot of other players in here who have posted suggestions that have been put into the game! SI is, for me at least, one of the developers who really listen to their customers, at least here on the forum.

Criticism of the game is more than welcome here! A lot of people have criticized the game in here and gotten good answers from SI. But it needs to be constructive criticism, and not just bashing or "tHis game sux0rs! lulz". It need to be valid. And to the guy who claimed the mods are defending SI; I've seen a lot of criticism of the game FROM mods, since they also enjoy the game and want it to be the best game it can be. Why on earth would they stop complaints when it helps them enjoy a game more if the complaints are valid?

This is in no way a condescending ramble about people's lack of knowledge of software development (as I have been accused of before), but rather to try to explain how and why this is not as easy as it might seem. Hopefully this will be the last post regarding this, but I really doubt it...

You might as well save this answer for next year and paste it back in 

[XaW]

2 hours ago, Face2Fate said:

My opinion is that the series has reached a stage of stagnation. Every year the changes are minor, subtle and even cosmetic at times and i don't think this justifies a yearly release.A two year cycle would be perfect but it probably wouldn't happen because of how much money the game makes.

2 hours ago, Tony Wright 747 said:

pretty much right on all counts

The don't buy it more than every other year. Or every third year. That is the consumer power and how you can influence it. Since you don't feel it justifies the price, then you are more than welcome to do so. If enough people do, then maybe SI will change. Others might like a yearly version and will buy it every year. For me, I think there have been enough progress to buy FM18. If I didn't then I would stay with FM17. Sometimes, I go back to an earlier version and enjoy it. Like CM01/02, or CM 96/97, or FM11. Those are some of my most played versions and I still sometimes play them. But if you really don't see any progress, or feel the stagnation, go back a version or two and try it out. If you like that version better then why not continue playing it?

[XaW]

13 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

You might as well save this answer for next year and paste it back in 

Any chance for a sticky with that?

[Karnack]

On 2017-11-23 at 07:54, Remez said:

Ye we do want a game every year. With the money they make it shouldnt be a problem to make a bug free game 

Do you actually believe there is such a thing as bug free software? 

[Remez]

2 minutes ago, Karnack said:

Do you actually believe there is such a thing as bug free software? 

Lol no  u know what a mean.. not as many as this year.

[Karnack]

1 minute ago, Remez said:

Lol no  u know what a mean.. not as many as this year.

Thanks, I almost gave up on humanity for a second

[Remez]

3 minutes ago, Karnack said:

Thanks, I almost gave up on humanity for a second

 

[grade]

I was forward the two year release, as it mean more developing time for the game. But I'm not sure if I can cope with 2 year of waiting for the new release.

The two year release can all be great at first, but we need to look at different aspects. The first sure developing time, would be great as it means they can polish out some features. At the same time, if they focus on the same thousand features they do the year release cycle, a lot of people would say the exact same criticism they do today. Not enough innovation, the game is the same and so on. But add that 600 plus day of waiting. Not sure criticism would be that soft as they are now.

Then there is the financial issue. SI is not a big company like EA, who can take the heat, like they have on Star Wars Battlefront II, where the reviews are on the s**t. Not sure if SI has that same capability to take such heat. SI is very dependent on its yearly release, since they only develop a 3 games in year release, meaning despite around this period of time of game release, probably there are periods in the year they won't make that much money.

Then there is risk of each cycle. SI since it started they didn't make any other cycle then one year release. Changing to different cycle is such a huge risk financially, that for you guys to understand, changing cycle and things go haywire, could mean the end for SI. The financial aspects of each cycle is so huge different, that even EA doesn't risk in there games like FIFA and Madden. The only cycle I see SI changing to, is what I heard on youtube a few days ago, that EA is pondering in doing. Which means the subscription cycle. Even that is sort EA testing waters, because they know it means that costumers might spent a lot more then the one year release, regardless of promotion. That even the subscription has its own risks, like how they can keep the costumers paying the subscription , month after month, after month. Not sure if online version SI release a few years ago was subscription base system. Regardless of it was or not the online version idea of ever developing, always improving and see what happen. They stop developing for it and now are testing it very faintly in one country South Korea. I never heard how the game is doing there. But i doubt the subscription will work for a game like SI.

I for one I'm forward the one year release, simply because it is model that SI knows about and it is enough for me to wait for. I'm waiting for one specific feature for FMT, to ditch the massive game. But it seems tablet developers, are not making massive improvements for FMT, so us desktop users, need to wait while longer for the editor. When I say wait, I mean wait for another few years, most likely. Maybe in the mean time, SI can make the full fat game more entertaining and less time consuming. Or this massive backlash on loot boxes and micro transactions (which FMT has on it), goes to one extreme to the other and authorities ban all micro transactions from the game. Maybe then we see an editor sooner.

Here is for waiting for either of them.

[XaW]

Let's do this again, but a bit more on point:

1. Double the time to develop due to releases every other year (in theory)
2. Half the revenue due to less versions released
3. Half the developers due to decreased revenue

What does this equate to? The same amount of hours spent on development and double the waiting time for a new version. Of course, this is simplifying it a lot. 

I really struggle to understand how anyone would think that with half the revenue the number of development hours will stay the same? Feel free to enlighten me on this part.

[forameuss]

12 minutes ago, XaW said:

Let's do this again, but a bit more on point:

1. Double the time to develop due to releases every other year (in theory)
2. Half the revenue due to less versions released
3. Half the developers due to decreased revenue

What does this equate to? The same amount of hours spent on development and double the waiting time for a new version. Of course, this is simplifying it a lot. 

I really struggle to understand how anyone would think that with half the revenue the number of development hours will stay the same? Feel free to enlighten me on this part.

Probably slightly less development time, all told.  The more they do, the more testing will need to be performed.

[themadsheep2001]

41 minutes ago, XaW said:

Let's do this again, but a bit more on point:

1. Double the time to develop due to releases every other year (in theory)
2. Half the revenue due to less versions released
3. Half the developers due to decreased revenue

What does this equate to? The same amount of hours spent on development and double the waiting time for a new version. Of course, this is simplifying it a lot. 

I really struggle to understand how anyone would think that with half the revenue the number of development hours will stay the same? Feel free to enlighten me on this part.

The obvious route (and the route I wouldnt want them to go down) would be proper DLC and even more micro-transactions. 

Of course that has its own development needs to. And then you really are diverting resources away from the game. From a personal perspective, no thanks 

[Tony Wright 747]

2 hours ago, XaW said:

The don't buy it more than every other year. Or every third year. That is the consumer power and how you can influence it. Since you don't feel it justifies the price, then you are more than welcome to do so. If enough people do, then maybe SI will change. Others might like a yearly version and will buy it every year. For me, I think there have been enough progress to buy FM18. If I didn't then I would stay with FM17. Sometimes, I go back to an earlier version and enjoy it. Like CM01/02, or CM 96/97, or FM11. Those are some of my most played versions and I still sometimes play them. But if you really don't see any progress, or feel the stagnation, go back a version or two and try it out. If you like that version better then why not continue playing it?

Actually looking at my reply I should have said right on some counts, but not all, obviously still half asleep.  If you have read any of my other posts this is exactly what I do, My buying history is thus, bought all CM's up to the split, then FM 05,07, 09, 10, 11, 12 and 16 and I don't think I will be buying 18.  The two I currently play are FM12 and 16, mostly 12.  My general critera is if there is more things I like than things that annoy me then I buy.

 

I appreciate that for reasons already mentioned on this thread that there has to be an annual release, but what I have noticed is that in my opinion in the so called "polishing" years the game is better than when a lot of new features are introduced, but I don't know enough about software development to suggest that less new features each release would be the answer.  As I have already posted in the feedback thread, I think there is potentially some good ideas in this years release that can be improved over subsequent years.

 

Football Manager is a complex game and lets be honest, is the only one that comes any where near simulating real football management, and whilst I can get frustrated with the development at times for example when I see really good animations in the 3D game on FM12, that I see missing in later releases, and I am disapointed when my expectations are not always met, there is no other football management game that comes even close to what FM does.

[Nuno Dias]

On 22/11/2017 at 20:41, serif said:

Consider, by the way, that EA is now thinking about not releasing their far more successful games annually. Eventually customer dissatisfaction might affect SI too, although they may be too small and content and ignore it.

Good comparison, fantastic even, money, resorces, sales, SI and EA are absolute matches, and as for the care for the consumer, EA is famous for it, there are more memes for EA than for trump...LOL

I personaly can tell you how good they compare in football management, because i played Fifa Manager until it was discontinued, it's the same type of product, and the two companies you compare, and BELIEVE ME that as much as SI can even try they can never mess anything up as Fifa Manager did, i bought most of the editions, for years on end there was the exact same bugs, you had to have mods from players for the ME, because that ME was a complete joke without it, EVERY YEAR, so yeah, good comparison...

[XaW]

7 minutes ago, Tony Wright 747 said:

Actually looking at my reply I should have said right on some counts, but not all, obviously still half asleep.  If you have read any of my other posts this is exactly what I do, My buying history is thus, bought all CM's up to the split, then FM 05,07, 09, 10, 11, 12 and 16 and I don't think I will be buying 18.  The two I currently play are FM12 and 16, mostly 12.  My general critera is if there is more things I like than things that annoy me then I buy.

I appreciate that for reasons already mentioned on this thread that there has to be an annual release, but what I have noticed is that in my opinion in the so called "polishing" years the game is better than when a lot of new features are introduced, but I don't know enough about software development to suggest that less new features each release would be the answer.  As I have already posted in the feedback thread, I think there is potentially some good ideas in this years release that can be improved over subsequent years.

Football Manager is a complex game and lets be honest, is the only one that comes any where near simulating real football management, and whilst I can get frustrated with the development at times for example when I see really good animations in the 3D game on FM12, that I see missing in later releases, and I am disapointed when my expectations are not always met, there is no other football management game that comes even close to what FM does.

No worries. On some counts I agree that the versions are quite similar, but what revolutionary change is possible? Football isn't a sport that changes a lot from year to year, and most of the changes possible will not be grandiose things like for instance FPS games can do. I do think the game is improved each year, though I agree not all features and changes have been implemented without incident, and I am sure SI would agree that things could have been done different in hindsight. However, through some issues and struggles I still feel the total package is a clear improvement from the former version.

This year I pre-ordered the game, as I did the year before. I don't normally pre-order, and I think pre-ordering in general is a bad trend in gaming, but for FM I just can't help myself. This is the only game I pre-order since I don't feel that SI have let me down yet. I have no problems with other people having other notions and feelings regarding this. 

For me the yearly version of FM is my gaming-highlight of the year. Call me a sheep or a pawn, I don't care I love this game!

38 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

The obvious route (and the route I wouldnt want them to go down) would be proper DLC and even more micro-transactions. 

Of course that has its own development needs to. And then you really are diverting resources away from the game. From a personal perspective, no thanks 

This is one of the few ways SI could go that would make me seriously thinking about stop buying FM in the future.