Re-writing things from the ground up the same way they did them is what caused this problem. From a software side, the initial build is the most costly. You can change things much easier while building it but when you have a final code, changing a major component like a two-tiered system creates havok. It's especially true given their time frames.

It's one drawback of having an annual release cycle. You never really see a sports game redo a graphics engine or any major component during a console's life span. Most consoles are considered to have a 5 year life span. After that, all the resources are poured into the new technology. If we can get the console makers to stretch out the console life to 8 to 10 years, it might give an incentive to a developer to re-invest true development time on an existing title. Otherwise they all build the base engine for Day One and just tweak it until it's dead. We don't really get any significant improvements after this. Just a slow, evolutionary improvement. Nothing revolutionary.

That's exactly why my enthusiasm took a nose dive because EA built a base similar to what they already had. Their play system will be the same throughout this generation of consoles and the play system has impact on how the game is played. At the end of the day I look at it this way. EA had a building on PS2/Xbox and that building had a core. On 360 and PS3 they have a new building, BUT, the big question is, is the frame/core the same from PS2/Xbox? Right now, the way the game plays it sure APPEARS that way.

You know after playing the game, even though I want the tiered play calling eventually, I think I'll survive and thrive to a degree.