NCAA Football 13 Screenshots (91 of Them)

[12]

Quote: Originally Posted by CHooe

If a year is not enough time for EA to deliver a game that meets the standards required for them to earn your $60 purchase, I'm in no position to argue that. Speaking strictly to the high-level business model, however, I'd imagine the game probably turns a profit for EA; else, why would they even bother developing a product that would hemorrhage money from the company annually? The iterative nature of sports games development should be well-known and expected by now by all of us, and there's fat chance that EA, 2K, or any other annual sports game publisher is ever going to break that cycle for the sake of what we perceive as lack of polish or on-the-surface lack of substantial change year-over-year.

To me, a good business model involves involving your customers. It involves your loyal customers having high rates of satisfaction. That was my point and I know not many will agree with that and I further realize that maybe it's not logical in the business world, but that was what I meant. Of course they turn a profit year after year; I think eventually the profits will shrink more and more. I don't study EA's sales numbers but with a flailing economy and a game that is not really moving forward, I'd predict that the game's sales will take a dip. It's not something I hope for, but there are a lot of unhappy people with this title and I see that both at OS and in my personal life. I am one of the only ones of my friends that continues to buy this game year after year, which in itself means nothing, but I'd be curious to see what the sales numbers have been doing over the past 3-5 years.

I know the game will continue to be churned out year after year, and odds are I will buy it. I just don't think a one-year development cycle is enough for them because far too little progress has been made in the 7 years that we've had this game on the current consoles. There's no other conclusion for me to arrive at.

[12]

Quote: Originally Posted by PowerofRed25

In the past though, uniforms that weren't shown off before a certain date never made it in the game. That has almost always been the case and has caused a lot of frustrated people. With DLC, EA is in the position to create things as they are unveiled, which should alleviate a lot of those problems. However, in the case of these screenshots, uniforms that HAVE been unveiled already aren't shown at all. The one that sticks out to me is Missouri, which very obviously has their 2011 uniforms and 2011 roster (#26 presumably being the graduated De'Vion Moore). Missouri's uniforms have been unveiled for two months. Another one would be Rutgers, whose uniforms have been unveiled for nearly two months. We're not talking special uniforms either, we're talking their every day uniforms in both cases. They may be holding back some uniforms, and I get the reasoning, but a significant number of these pictures have either old rosters, old uniforms or both. I'm not doubting it isn't NCAA 13 in these photos, but there are some pretty weird inconsistencies.

I'm sorry, but I just have to kind of chuckle at Rutgers' uniforms being out two months.

As annoying as I am about this topic, it has been THREE years at least since I sent a detailed e-mail to EA about Washington's new home uniforms. This was in 2009 and the e-mail showed five or six pictures of the jerseys being worn in-game. I got an automated e-mail back thanking me for my time and dedication to the series.

Yeah, those home jerseys will not be in NCAA Football 2013. The Washington Huskies are still rocking the home jerseys that they wore in 2009 (and haven't worn since).

That's the biggest uniform oversight to me, and not just because it's the team I run with. I mean, three years at the minimum since I've asked and showed them the new jerseys... and nothing. Really?

[okstate19]

I was always a bit annoyed with the equipment guys. I never understood how some people get so worked up over facemasks or cleats.

(Uniforms though, those are a different story)

But as much as it didn't make sense to me, I have to completely agree with everything said thus far. Not because it really matters to me, but because there is no real reason to not give a consumer the OPTION. I don't know anything about programming, but it seems like a lot of it would just be as simple as a palette swap.

Just like many of you, it boggles my mind to think about the state of the NCAA series. I can remember plodding along on dial-up, scouring any site I could find that had info about the "new" NCAA's on PS2. It was always a preorder and day one purchase, and it's crazy to think about how often I played PS2 NCAA to PS3 NCAA. I literally played nearly every day. Granted, I was still in junior high/high school and had less responsibility, but I mean, I devoted nearly ALL my gaming time to NCAA for at least 6-8 months.

In fact, I didn't buy a PS3 until 2008 because past-gen NCAA's served as a decent enough place-filler to let my save up money gradually. I remember talking with my buddies about how awesome NCAA would be on the new systems and how great we all thought the screen shots looked on the next-gen systems.

Then I played NCAA 09. And great anticipation slowly turned to shocked disappointment. "How did they go backwards?" I remember myself thinking. (Personally, I hated 09, dealt with 10, tolerated 11, and thought 12 was the best next-gen version so far.) I don't believe that initial disappointment has ever really worn off.
Long story short, it's frustrating. I think it's most frustrating because the sports game that was once arguably THE best on the market has now been passed by by nearly all others.

Players should be able to have multi-colored pieces of equipment. Uniforms unveiled before the beginning of the season shouldn't cost money to use. Examples such as Washington SHOULD NEVER HAPPEN. We live in a world with information at our fingertips and accessible at a moment's notice. Beyond that, fans of the series have taken it upon themselves to aid NCAA developers purely for the love of their school, their sport, and their game.

But somehow, we're stuck in the world of crew-cuts or predator, white and blue or black and blue.

I'll buy again this year. Maybe because I can't let go of that feeling of enjoyment I used to get out of NCAA. Maybe because I just need a college football fix. Probably a bit of both. But every year, my enthusiasm comes closer and closer to resembling apathy.

So keep fighting the good fight "equipment-philes" and "dread-heads." And here's hoping that the next generation of consoles finally deliver that NCAA we always envisioned it could be.

But until then...

Enjoy reaction-time with Barry Sanders in a North Texas jersey!

[PowerofRed25]

Quote: Originally Posted by Apostle

I'm sorry, but I just have to kind of chuckle at Rutgers' uniforms being out two months. As annoying as I am about this topic, it has been THREE years at least since I sent a detailed e-mail to EA about Washington's new home uniforms. This was in 2009 and the e-mail showed five or six pictures of the jerseys being worn in-game. I got an automated e-mail back thanking me for my time and dedication to the series. Yeah, those home jerseys will not be in NCAA Football 2013. The Washington Huskies are still rocking the home jerseys that they wore in 2009 (and haven't worn since). That's the biggest uniform oversight to me, and not just because it's the team I run with. I mean, three years at the minimum since I've asked and showed them the new jerseys... and nothing. Really?

I'm not saying they aren't lacking in many, many, MANY areas. One of the guys earlier in the thread mentioned how they finally added Rutgers new stadium addition which I believe has been done for years. Many other schools have had the same.

But things like Missouri I know had been specifically mentioned at one point, and yet here we have their old uniforms, their old roster and obviously their old conference (playing OU and other Big 12 schools).

[mtoo22]

Quote: Originally Posted by PowerofRed25

But if you don't continuously tend to the garden, it will inevitably die. And unfortunately, EA is letting its key pieces wilt while adding things that cannot possibly help. In the case of Heisman Challenge, the leaves are already brown and dying before the plant is in the ground. And hopefully that ends the horticulture references for a while.

Well the problem is they replaced the top soil with some rocky dirt now the crops are bad....anyway...

Sent from my HTC Hero S using Tapatalk 2

[UH53]

Quote: Originally Posted by Apostle

I guess I am just now convinced that a year is not enough time for EA Sports to develop a game. It's just not and they have proven it time and time again. The visuals are bad enough but little else has changed for the better. Each year, it seems like the game was shipped with a game crippling glitch or bug that never gets fixed. They may try through patches, but it simply doesn't happen. I am sure the Development Team works hard and their hands are tied on a lot of things, but a year is simply not enough time. I've never been in that camp, but I am now. Their business model with this game is flawed... Rather than put all of the new uniforms in the game, they mention that they will be available as DLC. Does that mean that I'll be dropping even more money getting updated uniforms that should have been available in the first place? I am seriously asking because I don't know, not making a gripe. I would pay for maybe one uniform, but I would do it begrudgingly and I wouldn't be very happy about it. It will be just another backhanded tactic to bleed more money out of their loyal customers. I hope that's not the case. Damn, the things I am saying about this game now are things that I NEVER thought I would be saying about THIS title. That's just what it is now, though. It sucks.

It's crazy to think that a year is not enough when they pretty much overhauled the look of the game from NCAA 10 to 11. NCAA 11 was a huge step in the right direction graphically and equipment wise. They had significant detail in the gloves and shoes, albeit Nike, but none the less they made changes. They had all the neck pads right too, from extended to covered. I definitely can't excuse them from the helmets and facemasks though. Somewhere along the way they lost their direction.... How this happened I don't know but I have a theory about it that I'll share later in the comment.

Getting back to my original point. They did all of this in a year's cycle so there really is no excuse for them. They basically got away from the core of the game, FOOTBALL, and decided they would rather work on fluff pieces like Heisman Challenge and cheerleaders.... Inexcusable! Every time I see Ben Haumiler mention something like they realized they were behind on the times because of the uniform changes and now they're doing something about it... I honestly wonder if they really watch the game they claim to love!

So here's my theory on the misguided nature of this series and I think I know why they insist on the ankle socks! Haumiler is an FSU alum and a true homer. He probably graduated around the time when Warrick Dunn and Charlie Ward were there. Warrick Dunn and a lot of the FSU players wore ankle socks at that time. That time was around '93-'96! If this doesn't show you how out of touch he is I don't know what will! I can also only assume he was in love with a cheerleader during that time and only payed attention to the game through Sportcenter Highlights. So these NCAA titles are his homage to the cheerleader (her or him), the '93 Nat'l Champs, and ESPN!

[bpac55]

The thing that really gets me though is that it is OBVIOUS they see what the players are wearing. Let's take the Maryland pride uniforms. They have those in the game...But didn't they see in any of the videos or screen shots that NOT A SINGLE PLAYER on UM was wearing the UA cleats that they have in the game?

I firmly believe that they put all of the current cleats in the game with the mindset of "this should shut them up for a while"

[tHurley2010]

Perhaps they can't put the exact equipment in due to the potential lawsuit dealing with player likenesses (I don't know if that's right--legal jargon is difficult to understand).

HOWEVER...

If EA has no legal problem with its customers updating the rosters with names and more accurate attributes (which happens every year), then it shouldn't have any legal problem if it just puts the equipment in the game, and having us update the players with the right equipment like we do with naming the rosters.

I'm sure being a game about college players brings with it a whole heap of issues that aren't tied to making a game with professional players. I wish EA would give us a reason why, but even if they did, I'm sure a good amount of you are so entrenched in the mindset of, "EA is just being lazy", that their explanation probably wouldn't convince you otherwise.

I want equipment to be in the game. To me it adds just that more realism to a game that I enjoy. However, if Landry Jones has all the right equipment and he throws a perfect pass to an open WR, only to have a DB who is 8 yards away from the ball electric slide over there and intercept the pass, I'm not going to be saying, "Damn! Look at how accurate Landry Jones's equipment is!" I would rather the guys at EA get one thing right, the game play, first before setting out on a whole new endeavor.

And HuskerPower25, maybe they had Ciante Evans in at QB???