NCAA Football 12 Title Update #2 - Waiting on Approval From Microsoft and Sony

[Kingfish]

Quote: Originally Posted by callmetaternuts

Would it make sense for EA to have two dev teams? They could work in rolling two year windows on some of the features. Of course, they would still have to implement the code into the previous version, but maybe have Team A work on the games that release in odd years and Team B work on even years with quarterly (?) meetings to make sure one code wont break the other.

That works for some game development, even some sports games but what this dev team needs is a road map, a development plan for like 4 years;

• Year 1: add new feature(s)
• Year 2: refine new features(s) and dedicate vast majority of time on game-play only
• Year 3: Update stadiums/uniforms work on visual aspects of the game. Continue to refine the features added in year 1 AND work on game-play issues
• Year 4: FINISH the polish on all the features they added in year 1 and ensure ALL game-play issues are fixed.

THEN they could start the next cycle over by adding a list of new features...

But, NO new features are added until features work as intended, game-play is seamless and the visuals are updated(at least relatively).

I know, why can't they do this all in a single year? I keep asking myself the same thing...but its pretty clear they can't so an extended development model may be the only way to get the game on track.

[callmetaternuts]

It might work, but why would you buy the game in Year 1? Sounds a lot like what we get now, new features that aren't fully implemented and don't work as intended. The problem is rather than take last year (or this year for the most part) and just tweak, they try to cram in 4-6 new features next year and we just repeat the cycle.

They need to either go to a two year cycle and release an update in the off year that includes new stadiums, unis, roster update while offering tuners or just not add new features.

I'd be fine with a two year release, heck, charge $19.99 for the off year update which should include tweaks, unis, stadiums and other token features. This gives them two full years of dev time to develop and implement new features.

[w00dy Hayezz]

Quote: Originally Posted by callmetaternuts

It might work, but why would you buy the game in Year 1? Sounds a lot like what we get now, new features that aren't fully implemented and don't work as intended. The problem is rather than take last year (or this year for the most part) and just tweak, they try to cram in 4-6 new features next year and we just repeat the cycle. They need to either go to a two year cycle and release an update in the off year that includes new stadiums, unis, roster update while offering tuners or just not add new features. I'd be fine with a two year release, heck, charge $19.99 for the off year update which should include tweaks, unis, stadiums and other token features. This gives them two full years of dev time to develop and implement new features.

This would be a great idea!

[ScoobySnax]

Quote: Originally Posted by callmetaternuts

It might work, but why would you buy the game in Year 1? Sounds a lot like what we get now, new features that aren't fully implemented and don't work as intended. The problem is rather than take last year (or this year for the most part) and just tweak, they try to cram in 4-6 new features next year and we just repeat the cycle. They need to either go to a two year cycle and release an update in the off year that includes new stadiums, unis, roster update while offering tuners or just not add new features. I'd be fine with a two year release, heck, charge $19.99 for the off year update which should include tweaks, unis, stadiums and other token features. This gives them two full years of dev time to develop and implement new features.

By doing this, they'd most likely end up with a better product, but lose and ton of revenue for the off year. I know for a fact EA won't ever sacrifice overall profitability for a better-playing game.

[Kingfish]

Quote: Originally Posted by ScoobySnax

By doing this, they'd most likely end up with a better product, but lose and ton of revenue for the off year. I know for a fact EA won't ever sacrifice overall profitability for a better-playing game.

And that is why the system they have is the only one we will ever see. This isn't about making a better game, well, to the dev team it is but to the suits, they don't care as long as the sales are 10-15% higher than last year.

"Crap in a box and mark it guaranteed..." If it has EA and NCAA on the box we have proof that it will sell even if its steaming fresh.

[Strings74]

Quote: Originally Posted by callmetaternuts

It might work, but why would you buy the game in Year 1? Sounds a lot like what we get now, new features that aren't fully implemented and don't work as intended. The problem is rather than take last year (or this year for the most part) and just tweak, they try to cram in 4-6 new features next year and we just repeat the cycle. They need to either go to a two year cycle and release an update in the off year that includes new stadiums, unis, roster update while offering tuners or just not add new features. I'd be fine with a two year release, heck, charge $19.99 for the off year update which should include tweaks, unis, stadiums and other token features. This gives them two full years of dev time to develop and implement new features.

Such a good idea from a customer's perspective.

[TheDelta]

Quote: Originally Posted by callmetaternuts

Would it make sense for EA to have two dev teams?

No. Two teams cost twice the money. Do you really think they would have that much more profit that way to justify that cost?

Same argument for the two-year development cycle. They'd have to pay the developers all year long anyway, so way would they release just an update for 20 bucks when they can charge more than double that for a new game anyway? It just doesn't make sense economically.

Because what many people don't think about, as much as we all love to complain about their games... in the end we all still buy them, year after year. And you can be sure that most of those who now proclaim to never buy an EA Sports game again will have forgotten about that vow when NCAA/Madden 13 come around next year. As long as they offer the only football game on the market, people will buy it, because it's football, simple as that. Only if they faced competition or saw a drastic decrease in sales would they be forced to rethink their approach, and I don't think that's about to happen.

[bh446066]

Can somebody tell me what the named roster issue is with dynasty? Why would people's work be wasted?

What are the tendencies issues doing to gameplay?

Sorry...I'm late to the party this year...