Release week for any AAA sports titles on OS is mercurial to say the least. After the initial excitement of playing a new game dies down, the comments often turn negative as bugs, glitches and other oddities are discovered. In what seems like a disturbing trend, games are shipped now with more bugs than ever, especially as developers attempt to push the envelope with new modes and ideas. Inevitably, this leads to posters calling this year’s iteration “Madden 15.5” or “FIFA 15.5” and so on. Just as one thing leads to another, the next topic usually brought up is the notion of a two-year development cycle for sports titles. In this article, I will dissect the idea of a two-year development cycle and precisely how feasible it is in today’s gaming landscape.

Development Cycles

Pro - Longer development cycles could lead to deeper modes, more ideas
Con - Gamers could potentially get stuck with a lame mode for two years

Often post release we will see developers who have worked on the game come to an OS forum and reiterate that their team would have loved to get an idea into the game, but they didn’t have to time to flesh it out and make it come to fruition. In an industry dominated by timelines, this is a frustrating, yet understandable justification. After games are released, some teams are assigned to post-release support while others begin working on the next iteration after collecting the necessary feedback (and many also take long overdue vacations, and rightfully so).

Surely additional time could pay dividends when it comes to offline career modes, an area that many feel is left neglected in this online age. On the contrary, we're kind of assuming that two years would always result in a positive idea that works, which just might not be the case. Just imagine being stuck with a poor mode or gameplay flaws for two years.

EA Sports UFC will be succeeded by EA Sports UFC 2. Will we see the fruits of a two year cycle?

Quality Control

Pro - Two years would give testers more time to catch bugs, glitches, and so on
Con – More ambitious development could lead to bigger and more damaging bugs. Agile testing could help mitigate these issues

One of my favorite posts on OS is the inevitable, “Invite me down to Studio X and I would have caught that bug immediately.” While the notion that people would software test for free is admirable and shows the true passion we have for these games, the implementation of a two-year development cycle should lead to an increase in testing and, more importantly, better testing.

Proper software testing happens throughout the development life cycle and not just after a major development milestone. If there is one aspect that a two-year cycle should improve upon, it’s quality control.

Gameplay

Pro – Longer development cycles could lead to more robust, human-like gameplay
Con – Few games have proved that their gameplay can hold up over two years

Here at OS, we’re gameplay driven. “Sim” is embedded in our DNA, and thus so, we demand that gameplay be first and foremost the focus of developers. Longer development cycles should make for gameplay advances in the area of gameplay and all things associated with it. While it sounds good on paper, the reality is that very few games have gameplay solid enough to warrant waiting two years for an update. As of right now, NBA 2K and The Show are the only current offerings that could probably get away with waiting two years as they are either vastly superior (NBA 2K) or the only offering (The Show).

Legal Issues

There really are no pros to this aspect as due to contracts with the various leagues, software developers may or may not be required to produce a yearly effort. Seriously, this is probably one of the biggest issues, and it's not one we're really ever privy to as consumers.

Updates

Pro – Constant updates such as up-to-date rosters as well as gameplay patches would be vital in keeping the attention of gamers in this world of ADD gaming.
Con – Whenever this topic arises, DLC is sure to be brought up, and while many don't mind the concept of pumping more money into a game, some consider it a greedy cash grab.

Post-release support in the form of patches, tuners, roster updates, and so on could make or break this concept. While games like NBA 2K and The Golf Club do a good job at adding accessories/updating rosters, other games such as Konami’s PES struggle to do simple tasks like having updated rosters at the time of release. Regardless of their current offerings, post-release support teams would have to be beefed up in order to keep a gamer’s interests all year long (or two in this case).

We live in an age of instant gratification and 140-character limits while always having to have the latest and greatest. Patience, especially in the world of gaming, is slowly becoming an afterthought. Even as games are released with more and more bugs, do we have the patience to wait two years for a new sports title? In my opinion we do not.

Sports with defined seasons (football, basketball, baseball, etc.) could see their fan bases flee if gameplay is not good enough to warrant hanging around. Another area of uncertainty would be the price point. What would a two year wait do to the price tag? Could a subscription-based model be the future where a subscription buys you access to year-round updates and new releases? A shift to a two-year model would most certainly have to answer questions of this sort while also forcing consumers to change their expectations.


Would a two-year subscription model appeal to you or is the status quo just right?