Financially, there is no way a company could reduce it's sports releases to a bi-annual routine. The engine is in place so milk it for all the money they can get which is annual releases as the hype for the sport peaks. Maybe in the future DLC, paid patches and updates could replace it but I don't see anything changing in the near future and quite frankly I am fine with it the way it is. We all get bored with a game after awhile. I need a change every year to bring renewed interest. Playing the same game for two years would be too long.

This can be pulled off, but we aren't getting advanced enough games in terms of refreshing and dynamic gameplay yet.

I will do an example with NBA Live. You goto the store and buy the disc called "EA Basketball" for 20-30 bucks. Included on the disc is a generic 30 team league, a create a player, create a team, and play now, online, season, and dynasty modes. Once you go home with the game you can buy the NBA pack DLC for 20 bucks which would include all NBA art files, stadiums, commentary, rosters and that 365 daily update thing for the 09-10 season which would have to include some kind of annual update with new animations included to keep the same old game interesting. Once this is downloaded you will get a startup screen with an option to load up your generic game or your recently purchased NBA game.

Then once late October rolls around, a new DLC update is available for the same price and lets you download NCAA art, rosters, commentary and their daily update thing. Following purchase, the NCAA game will become available on that front main menu for selection.

Now if they really wanted to milk it, they could easily sell Euroleague, FIBA, and NBDL DLC packs to add on to the base game. And since it is up to the consumer which one to buy, they control the fate of their harddrive space. Each year they charge another 15-20 bucks for the 10-11 season and so on.

I have worked with the NBA Live file formats for a long time and they could easily compact 1 "game" into less than 2 gigs which isn't that bad considering all the art and commentary files.

That is how I think it will happen. Generic games, or very basic league (NBA, NFL, MLB) game releases that are constantly up****** the gameplay and features to keep it "fresh". I guess my idea above is my ideal situation.

This is a great topic my friend.

While I personally feel a 2 year cycle would be best for us gamers, I do understand that it is not a feasible business plan for developers.

I'd love to see a company pool their resources, take a year off, and come out with a high quality title every two years. I just think that $60 is far too much to ask for a yearly sports game purchase- especially with the amounts of bugs/glitches we seem to be running into lately that require a patch a few months down the road.

What I'd love to see is a title come out every two years, but charge us for a roster update via xbox marketplace or the ps network for the year the game is not made. I'd be more than willing to pay $60 for a game that is released in 2009, and then pay $25 to download new/living rosters for 2010, and then pay $60 for the new game in 2011.

Would developers really be losing that much money? It seems like most new sports games are on sale for $20 off within 2 months of release anyways, so what's the big deal? Not only would developers be able to actually spend time fine tuning their games, but us customers would benefit in the long run as well.

I know it will never happen, but it would be glorious.

I like that idea in theory jaosming. The only issue for the consumer is variety. If the gameplay is the same for each league pack or whatever then it will get boring pretty quick. If they're able to program in different play styles and then it could work.

The other major sticking point is AI. Once you figure out how to outsmart the AI then the game gets too easy and boring... if they did a better job getting more realistic AI (each league type would need to have its own AI as well) then it could solve the problem. Each league would have to have it's own AI settings so you're constantly being challenged.

However, this is where real life steps in again... what's the advantage for the developer to do this set up rather than just sell x different amount of basketball games each year for $60 each? They're in it to make money.

The only way things are gonna change is if consumers stop buying yearly versions of their favorite games. Sometimes we forget that we're the ones with the power... we decide with our dollars. Keep buying what they put out and they'll keep making it, no matter how crappy.

I think your last two paragraphs are the two telling things about jaosming's idea...it makes no monetary sense in today's environment (and likely never will). The amount of consumers likely to buy anything off of XBox live or PSN is far fewer than the amount of consumers who will buy a game off a store shelf. You automatically cut out a large percentage of the population who still doesn't play online for some (40% of 360 owners have never gotten online and a much higher percentage don't use the online features all that much). That's the main reason any business model to use DLC as a primary source of revenue is doomed to failure right off the bat.

Bumble...my last post pretty much sums up why that plan would not work either. A company would lose 75-85% of their revenue for a year if that happened.

As an example, EA would be spending twice the money on a single game and would be making perhaps 60% of the money in return. Those profit margins wouldn't cut it with consumers very eager to buy yearly editions of games still.

Change in business happens because there is (almost always) clearly a more profitable way to do something. So long as the current model continues to be rather profitable, the climate won't change. It's really a simple issue at it's heart

I buy sports games every other year. It just doesn't make much sense to me to spend $60 for a roster update and 1-2 minor gameplay tweaks every year for each sport.

I guess I don't get bored with games as quickly as other people do. I'm still playing (and enjoying) College Hoops 2k8 and I'm looking forward to starting another season in my MLB 08: The Show franchise.

I think you meant to post this comment in here JohnDoe:

A company could always take the approach that the Call Of Duty franchise takes, and give it to two development teams (Infinity Ward & Treyarch) and give each team two years to improve on the product. Not only would it be a better product (in theory) but it would also make each yearly iteration feel a bit fresher.

Now you could have consistent improvement in certain areas like art (stadiums, uniforms, helmets, logos, bowl art, etc.) and have some carry over between the teams like the art guys, the animation guys, the AI guys, but leave it so that the meat of the game can be tuned heavily enough by each team that the game feels different enough, yet retains the core values that make the game what it is.

So the NCAA 08 team would be doing NCAA 10 for example and the NCAA 09 team would be hard at work on NCAA 11.

In response to the COD argument...some companies use it, but that doesn't mean it's more profitable. In the instance of NCAA (for example), you would be paying for the development of two games at once, with only one getting released a year. That doesn't make business sense to switch to that model from the highly profitable model that is in place now. Basically, I don't think there is a more profitable solution right now so long as the consumers continue to buy like they are.

Think of it this way-

The AI could be put in a file(as we stand now, some of the AI is in files, some is "hardcoded" in the executable file), similar to an image that can be patched or changed, so it can be updated and changed with new versions. The AI could also be in an executable file, and each version of basketball (NBA/NCAA) would need their own executable files to execute it's specific features, along ith it's specific AI. In short, AI can be changed and updated as long as the game is developed to allow it.

This is a great point, but its possible to create a retail version of DLC and sell it in stores.

My opinion is that they need to change their development strategies. They have really been pushing the features angle for years, now. Features get old. Solid coded gameplay does not get old. It plays and reacts different everytime you play it, so it feels fresh.

I like the one-year cycle. However, there is a way to make sports games in two year cycles -- Release downloadable content for the existing game.

Have the consumer pay $10 for a year's worth of online roster updates (since we are currently paying $60 for one at this time). The publishers could also release downloadable content such classic stadiums or patch in new features.

I agree that most people want to get the next best thing. However, I think many of the sports games that have been released over the past two years have made huge strides.

Madden 09 (although there are always going to be people who dog Madden just because). The graphics are excellent and the new presentation makes the game fresh. Not to mention the weekly roster updates.

Live 09 also added new features along with much improved gameplay.

The Show has taken steps each year to solidify its position in the top spot in regards to baseball.

Series that should go to a two-year cycle: NASCAR and Fight Night (which FN took a two-year hiatus). First, NASCAR is not a mainstream title and two years of polish would help boost sales. Fight Night because boxing isn't seasonal and with the extra time many advances can be made -- as I am hoping with FN 4.